Playing with FIRE: how some Millennials are retiring before the age of 40

Peter Adeney, also known as Mr Money Moustache, has been running his blog of the same name since 2011. A recent post, provocatively titled How to Make a Thousand Bucks an Hour, details how Adeney helped a friend save over $6,000 a year simply by re-evaluating and renegotiating several of her existing loan agreements. It’s through posts such as this that Adeney has built his substantial following of 1.5 million monthly readers. The advice he doles out is all based on his remarkable life story: Adeney retired in 2006 aged just 30, having amassed approximately $600,000 in investments in the early part of his career. He achieved this by living extremely frugally, which allowed him to save the majority of his $67,000 annual income.

Today, the lifestyle promoted by Adeney has evolved into a wider philosophy: the ‘financial independence, retire early’ (FIRE) movement. Proponents of this movement argue that by spending little and investing wisely during the early years of one’s career, a person could give up work at least 20 years before the traditional retirement age. But while FIRE followers maintain that early retirement is achievable for any person, not just those receiving a high salary, critics are doubtful, arguing that the FIRE lifestyle is only accessible to those with the financial knowledge to make it work and no economic responsibilities to contend with.

Running the numbers
The principles underpinning the FIRE movement are based on two main sources, the first being Your Money or Your Life, a book published in 1992 by Vicki Robin and Joe Dominguez. The text promotes ‘life energy’ over financial means, setting out nine steps to teach readers to live a simpler yet more fulfilling life. However, Robin admitted in a recent interview with The New York Times that she never envisaged the text would become a seminal guide for today’s numbers-orientated FIRE followers. “Our aim was to lower consumption to save the planet,” she said. “We attracted longtime simple-living people, religious people, environmentalists.”

While FIRE followers maintain that early retirement is achievable for any person, not just those receiving a high salary, critics are doubtful

The second source, a 1998 paper titled Retirement Spending: Choosing a Sustainable Withdrawal Rate, published by three professors of finance at Trinity University, sets out the mathematical basis for the modern movement. The paper established the four percent rule, which is used to calculate how much a person can withdraw annually from their retirement portfolio without running out of money. The rule works on the assumption that investment appreciation and dividends increase the value of the portfolio by around seven percent per year, but the portfolio decreases by around three percent per year as a result of inflation. Therefore, spending no more than four percent theoretically ensures that the portfolio will not shrink.

There are, however, a number of flaws in the report’s calculations. First, the study was completed during a time of prosperity for the US economy – today, a seven percent annual rate of return on investments is much harder to achieve. Second, the calculation doesn’t account for a dramatic rise in annual spending, due, for example, to hyperinflation or another kind of economic crisis. Third, the original authors of the study based their calculations on a 30-year retirement period, as they assumed that a person would be retiring in their 60s. If the four percent rule is applied when a person retires at 30, their portfolio will technically only last until they are 60. At this point, they will still be too young to begin claiming a pension and would have to find another source of income.

Can’t handle the heat
The movement has also faced criticism for promoting a savings regime that is only possible for those on a high income. According to SmartAsset’s analysis of Bureau of Labour Statistics data, the average Millennial in the US earned $35,592 in 2018. This group spends an estimated 45 percent of that salary on rent, a 2018 report by RENTCafé showed. If a person saved 50 percent of their income, that would leave five percent of their annual income, or around $1,780, to pay for medical, transportation and food costs, along with student loans and other expenses. Living on such a small sum would be impossible.

FIRE proponents are dismissive of this criticism, claiming that saving is simply a case of adjusting your financial attitude. “We spend whatever we want. We just happen to want a bit less,” Adeney tweeted recently in response to an article suggesting that FIRE encourages “extreme frugality”. However, for many, saving the amount required to build a six-figure investment portfolio before the age of 40 is not simply a choice. Rather, it would mean shirking grave financial responsibilities.

What’s more, saving the funds to support early retirement requires financial nous, both in calculating savings rates and selecting investments that will provide the necessary returns. For this reason, the lifestyle has typically appealed to those who are number-savvy and already have an understanding of investing. They “tend to be male and work in the tech industry, left-brained engineer-types who geek out on calculating compound interest over 40 years”, wrote The New York Times’ Steven Kurutz.

Going cold
Despite the criticism that has been directed its way, the FIRE movement has rapidly gained popularity in recent months. It has seen extensive press coverage on both sides of the Atlantic, with some of its proponents becoming minor celebrities as a result – most recently authors Kristy Shen and Bryce Leung, whose guidebook to their lifestyle, Quit Like a Millionaire, was released in July 2019.

FIRE proponents are dismissive of criticism, claiming that saving is simply a case of adjusting your financial attitude

Even some who are in a financial position to retire early are sceptical of FIRE. Natasha Collins is one such example: the chartered surveyor, property investor and lecturer has elected to continue working, despite having more than enough in her bank account to quit her day job. “I like working and want to share my knowledge with others,” she told World Finance. “I’m only 30 – it seems a waste to stop working now.”

When asked about the FIRE movement, Collins said: “I think it’s great if that’s what you want to do. [But] I’d wonder about the type of person who would want to just give everything up.” Perhaps though, it’s not about giving everything up, but choosing a different path. The rise of the FIRE movement aligns with a wider social trend that is particularly prevalent among younger generations – namely, a willingness to embrace new ways of working. For those who have recently entered the workforce, the prospect of toiling at a desk for 40 hours a week for the next 40 years is daunting and has led many to question the point of earning a decent salary if it is simply spent on existing from one day to the next. FIRE offers an alternative – it proposes frugality for a short period in exchange for a more fulfilling life down the line.

Nevertheless, FIRE is an extreme iteration of that belief. It is possible to achieve similar results through more measured means, such as reducing working hours to create more free time or investing a small percentage of monthly income to build a modest nest egg, which could be drawn upon to finance a six-month sabbatical. But moderation, sensibility and balance don’t grab headlines in the same way that “I saved $1m and retired at 30” does.

Early retirement is a choice, but not one that is available to everyone. “I think it’s basic human nature to want to work on things you are passionate about, which retiring early would allow you to do,” Collins said. “But I’ve found that working on my passions has also come with making money.” FIRE presents those two things as mutually exclusive, but that’s not necessarily the case. By eschewing the movement’s extreme approach in favour of a more balanced attitude to saving, it’s still possible to retire early – just in your 50s, as opposed to in your 30s – without demanding such frugal living along the way.

Kazakhstan’s capital seeks new role amid shifting global markets

In July 2019, Mark Yeandle, lead author and co-creator of the Global Financial Centres Index, addressed journalists gathered in the Kazakhstani capital of Nur-Sultan for the latest edition of Astana Finance Days and offered a forthright assessment of the finance sector. “We have over 100 financial centres in the world,” he said. “If you asked me a straight question, ‘Does the world need another international financial centre?’ The answer is: ‘No’.”

The admission was all the more surprising given its setting: Astana Finance Days is a four-day event designed to showcase Nur-Sultan as a new name on the global financial circuit. Yeandle did not intend to burst any bubbles – rather, he simply wished to offer a dose of realism. Nur-Sultan is competing with global heavyweights with a long history of financial success, as well as a good
number of fellow upstarts.

If Nur-Sultan is to successfully demonstrate that it is more than just another international financial centre, the city has to build a convincing narrative that will grab the attention of investors

But regardless of whether the world needs more international financial centres, it is getting them, and there are reasons to believe that Nur-Sultan – given time – could compete against its better-known rivals. Efforts are already well underway to bolster the city’s reputation as a financial hub, with swift progress being made in areas like regulatory standards, infrastructure and human capital. It is easy to sneer at Nur-Sultan’s ambition of becoming the epicentre of finance in Central Asia, but great strides are already being made.

Reputation building
In many respects, Nur-Sultan is starting from the beginning. Ask people where Nur-Sultan is and most would probably stare back blankly – and you can hardly blame them. The capital city was known as Astana until March of this year, when it was renamed in honour of former president Nursultan Nazarbayev, who had recently stepped down. Even Kazakhstan itself, despite being the ninth-largest country in the world, could hardly claim to be particularly well known. Attracting investment here, over the likes of London, New York or Shanghai, will not be easy. Fortunately, those tasked with turning Nur-Sultan into an international financial centre have already got to work.

The Astana International Financial Centre (AIFC) was launched on July 5, 2018, and represents the fundamental strand of Nur-Sultan’s ambitions. As well as looking the part – the AIFC is housed in the grand surroundings of the Kazakhstan Pavilion and Science Museum, built for Expo 2017 – the AIFC incorporates a number of the principles and standards that international investors have come to expect from a leading financial centre.

For example, participants in the AIFC are granted access to a simplified visa regime, whereby citizens of OECD countries, Malaysia, Monaco, the UAE and Singapore can stay in Kazakhstan for 30 days visa-free. This visa waiver also has the potential to be extended for up to five years. In addition, individuals and businesses registered with the AIFC are exempt from individual and corporate income tax, as well as from property and land tax for any properties located on the AIFC premises, until the year 2066.

“The AIFC has already become a centre that attracts major international banks and investment companies,” noted Kassym-Jomart Tokayev, President of Kazakhstan, at Astana Finance Days. “Important activities of the centre will be asset and funds management and the introduction of new financial and green technologies. In the turbulent conditions of the world stock and currency exchanges, the AIFC will become a generator of attracting investment in the economy and financial sectors of the [Eurasian Economic Union] countries.”

Certainly, the AIFC has got off to a flying start. Already, more than 200 companies have registered with the financial centre, including firms based in more than 20 countries, such as the UK, Russia, China and the US. Among some of the bigger names signed up to the AIFC are the China Development Bank, Russell Bedford and Shinhan Investment. Announcements regarding new participants are never far away.

Laying down the law
One reason businesses are so keen to sign up to the AIFC is the strong regulatory environment it offers. Operating alongside the AIFC is the AIFC Court, an independent judicial system designed to resolve civil and commercial disputes involving AIFC participants or any external party that has chosen the AIFC Court to adjudicate on an issue.

“We have a robust enforcement system at the court within Kazakhstan,” explained Christopher Campbell-Holt, Registrar and Chief Executive of the AIFC Court, at the conference. “When we have a judgment it can be enforced without going to the local court; it’s enforced directly by the enforcement agents of Kazakhstan with our step-by-step enforcement procedure. And the idea is that it’s as quick as possible. And we have more faith in it because we have some control over it. We don’t charge any fees. This will continue to be the case at least for the next two years and is very important when you want to drum up new business for the court.”

Perhaps most important is the fact that the AIFC Court will implement English common law, as opposed to Kazakhstani civil law, for all of its dispute resolutions. In a common law system, courts follow the customs and precedents set by prior judicial rulings. The AIFC Court has assembled a team of experienced and knowledgeable judges to oversee proceedings, including former chief justice Harold Woolf, former minister of state for justice Edward Faulks and barrister Patricia Edwards.

This is the first time a common law court system has been used in the post-Soviet world. It allows businesses and investors to work within a legal framework that they trust and has been successfully implemented in a number of other highly ranked financial markets, including Hong Kong and Singapore.

The AIFC Court also boasts an e-filing system, named eJustice, to ensure disputes are resolved as quickly as possible. This system means parties can file cases electronically with the court from anywhere in the world without having to be physically present in Nur-Sultan. In fact, the AIFC resolved its first case in April of this year via its small claims court, with the judgment issued by a magistrate in London via email.

Alongside the AIFC Court is the AIFC International Arbitration Centre (IAC), which provides an alternative dispute resolution service that avoids court litigation by using respected mediators from the EU, Russia, Japan and several other markets. Together, the AIFC Court and the IAC help deliver the solid regulatory environment that investors expect. For individuals and corporations that might not be familiar with the local business and legal landscape, these two institutions provide much-welcomed assurance and reliability.

The centre of the world
Kazakhstan may not be that well known, as a financial centre or otherwise, but this looks set to change. Aside from being a huge country, its location in the centre of the Eurasian landmass is a substantial asset for the nation. Bordered by China to the east, Russia to the north and with European markets just a few hours away to the west, Kazakhstan is well positioned to take advantage of any economic developments taking place in Central Asia.

Many nations in this part of the world have rich deposits of natural resources, including oil, gas, zinc and copper. In a number of cases, the collection of these resources remains »
underdeveloped, meaning there is huge potential for extractive industries. There is another reason why investors might be looking to Central Asia for future gains: the region’s young, well-educated population.

The average age of Kazakhstani citizens is 30, with more than 70 percent of the working-age population currently active in the labour market. Average wages come in at around $516 a month, significantly lower than other nations with a similar GDP per capita. This represents a fantastic opportunity for foreign businesses looking to target the Central Asian market. Over the next decade, it is estimated that the region has the potential to attract $170bn in foreign direct investment, with $40-70bn residing in non-extractive industries.

One of the biggest investment draws in Kazakhstan in the coming years is expected to be China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). Already, several large-scale infrastructure projects are underway, looking to connect the Asian state with markets in Europe, using Kazakhstan as a transit country. This includes the development of the Aktau seaport, a railway corridor joining Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and Iran, and a hugely ambitious plan to turn the Dry Port of Khorgos on the Kazakhstani-Chinese border into a central distribution hub for any number of products. These projects, of course, will all need financing – which is where the AIFC comes in.

Expo 2017 at the Kazakhstan Pavillion and science museum

“If you want to set up a new financial centre, you have to differentiate it,” Yeandle said. “You have to explain why it is different and how it is going to compete. Now, obviously you’ve got things like the geographical element, which is extremely important for this region. If I had to pick one thing in favour of Nur-Sultan as a financial centre, I think it’s about financing and helping the distribution and financing along the Belt and Road. Geographically, it’s in an ideal spot.”

Still, the BRI will not be enough to guarantee Nur-Sultan’s success as a financial centre: last year, it was announced that the China Development Bank would stop funding a $1.9bn railway project that was set to snake its way through Nur-Sultan. Internal issues relating to a domestic Kazakhstani bank were reportedly to blame but, whatever the reasons, the possibility of China withholding or cancelling loans will always be present with these major BRI projects.

A story of success
If Nur-Sultan is to successfully demonstrate that it is more than just another international financial centre, the city has to build a convincing narrative that will grab the attention of investors. It could specialise in Islamic finance, but businesses for which this is an important consideration may choose to operate in Dubai, Casablanca or Abu Dhabi instead.

Focusing on new financial developments might provide a better way for Nur-Sultan to carve out a niche, and the AIFC is already gaining a reputation as a hub for fintech companies. Earlier this year, the AIFC presented three fintech start-ups – all finalists of the Visa Everywhere Initiative – at an event organised by the National Innovation Agency of Thailand. One of the companies being showcased, Chocofamily, is the biggest e-commerce firm in Central Asia, with 1,800 merchants and 35,000 active customers.

However, the most convincing story that Nur-Sultan could tell potential investors should focus on the progress the city has already made. Despite only launching as a financial centre in 2018, the AIFC has already moved to 51st position in the Global Financial Centres Index, a rise of 37 places year on year, securing top spot in the Eastern Europe
and Central Asia regions.

Although the Kazakhstani capital may never become a financial hub to rival the likes of London or Frankfurt, its progress to date has already made individuals and businesses take notice. Central Asia may not be as economically developed as some of the world’s other major regions, but that is exactly why Nur-Sultan has been able to make great strides in such a relatively short time. As the long list of global financial centres continues to grow, the AIFC is already proving itself to be a welcome addition.

ATFX launches institutional brand, expands educational offering

ATFX is a global forex and CFD brokerage. In the UK it’s been regulated by the FCA since 2017, and it’s been growing fast. Managing Director Wei Qiang Zhang and Head of Marketing Ergin Erdemir discuss the brokerage’s competitive edge, its recently launched institutional offering, and the upgraded educational support that ATFX offers to its customers.

World Finance: First, how does ATFX set itself apart in the highly competitive forex market?

Wei Qiang Zhang: Yes, correctly, the FX market is very, very competitive now. We set up ourselves differently, focused on two things: people and technology.

We recruit talented people from around the world. They are multi-tasking, multi-skillsetted. For example, our customer services team can speak 10+ languages in 15+ offices around the world.

We invest heavily on technology. Now we have our own aggregator, we have developed our front end and back end system into second stage. Very soon our clients will be able to create an account with one or two clicks.

Of course our products also stand out from others; I will give Ergin, our head of marketing, for more details.

Ergin Erdemir: Thank you very much Wei. At ATFX we differentiate ourselves in three different key areas: being flexible, being competitive and cost effective, and being customer-centric.

Another key area we are focusing is offering the best possible competitive spreads to our clients. To do that we have redesigned our account types based on our client feedback. And each account type comes with multiple benefits, starting from competitive spreads and raw spreads with 0.0 pips on major products.

At ATFX we think the customer is everything. That’s why we put our customers at the heart of our business. We listen to them day in and day out, meet their needs through our products and services, and I think this is the best way to provide them the best possible trading experience.

World Finance: It’s not just retail forex you offer; you’re also stepping up your institutional offerings?

Wei Qiang Zhang: Exactly. Last month we launched our new brand: ATFX Connect, which is our institutional platform. We can aggregate 20+ liquidity providers, we can configure the price into different requirements. For example some clients maybe need a retail price with smaller tickets; some clients maybe need a bigger ticket from non-bank liquidity. We are proud of this product; we think we can offer this to our clients in hedge fund areas, in asset managers, and other brokers. Even some big banks.

We can deal with the prices through different channels such as API, webpage, GUI. Also a mobile app in the future.

We are also offering special solutions for some brokers, such as exchange data, which is very popular now. And we have some events worldwide coming in October-November; so if you’re interested, please watch out!

World Finance: Now, how do you ensure that your customers are educated and empowered in their trading?

Ergin Erdemir: At ATFX we take education very seriously, because we think there’s a lack of good education materials available within the forex industry. That’s why we have recently created a brand new education strategy – not only for new beginners, but also for intermediate and advanced level traders.

Our clients can join daily and weekly webinars with our global chief market strategist, and discuss the latest market trends. We also offer up to 20 webinars every month, covering major European languages, and touching various topics like technical analysis, fundamental analysis, and trading psychology.

Through offline channels, globally we run more than 10 seminars in our local offices, where our clients can come in and discuss their trading strategies, and improve their trading knowledge.

Finally, we’re attending trading events across the UK, Europe, and the rest of the world: to meet our partners and traders, to discuss their trading needs.

World Finance: And what protections and support are in place for your customers?

Wei Qiang Zhang: As s responsible broker under UK regulation, we have put various measures and tools to protect client interests and also client money, of course!

For example, active balance protection. Clients will not lose more than they have with us. And we have also a dedicated team to reconcile client money up to the penny on a daily basis.

We’re also looking for extra insurance to protect the client money further. But everything is based on the integrity and professionalism of our staff: we train them regularly, not only for skills and knowledge, but also for compliance and regulation, so we can serve our clients best.

Ergin Erdemir: In terms of support, we do not limit our customers to contacting us only via phone or email: they can simply go on our website, one click, open the live chatbox, and start talking to ATFX team members, and get the answers of their questions instantly.

As a result of our investment in customer service, ATFX won the Best Customer Service award by ADVFN in 2019, and the Best Forex Broker award through the UK Forex Awards.

World Finance: Finally, what does the future hold for ATFX UK?

Ergin Erdemir: At ATFX group, we are committed to grow our business across the UK, EU, Asia, the Middle East, Africa, even Latin America.

We will keep investing in our technology so that we can provide an excellent user journey to our clients. We are also in the middle of developing our mobile application, which is due soon.

Of course we’ll be investing on education and customer service, so that our clients can feel comfortable and competent while trading with us. We will keep investing in our products and offerings so that our clients can feel they are getting value for money. Last but not least, we will keep releasing new features for our professional traders.

Wei Qiang Zhang: Also, the market is very competitive now. So simple, pure brokerage doesn’t work anymore. So we have to move away from it, to build a more advanced, fintech model. That’s why we set up a new IT team in one of the European countries. Also we are updating our institutional offering: we’re going to sign a new PP, we’re going to have our own aggregator. We will also have our new bridge. So hopefully next time we can tell you more!

World Finance: Wei, Ergin, thank you very much.

Wei Qiang Zhang: Thank you.

Ergin Erdemir: Thank you.

Sing the blues: trade disputes and an ageing population are hampering Singaporean growth

Since 2018, global growth has been hampered by the ongoing trade war between the US and China. But while this high-profile clash continues to make headlines around the world, it is just one of many disputes causing long-held trade agreements to crumble: for instance, diplomatic tensions have re-emerged between Japan and South Korea, and at the time of World Finance going to print, the UK’s future relationship with the EU remains uncertain.

These compounding forces have led the IMF to slash its growth forecasts for 2019 and 2020, with the organisation stating in July that trade disputes continue to “sap confidence, weaken investment, dislocate global supply chains and severely slow global growth below the baseline [rate]”. According to Vishnu Varathan, Head of Economics and Strategy at Mizuho Bank, these impacts have already begun “reverberating through more channels than was initially anticipated”. One major casualty is the small city-state of Singapore.

Recession risk
Since Singapore declared independence from Malaysia in 1965, the nation’s economy has boomed. In that time, the city-state has claimed one of the highest rates of GDP growth around the world, registering an average increase of 7.7 percent per annum (see Fig 1), according to the World Bank. In the first two and a half decades of independence, the economy grew even faster, recording an average rise of 9.2 percent per year.

Perhaps most notably, Singapore has flourished as a financial hub, boasting one of the world’s best regulatory environments for business. In 2019, the country was recognised by the Switzerland-based International Institute for Management Development as the most competitive economy in the world, due to its favourable immigration laws, strong technological infrastructure and highly skilled workforce.

But with one of the busiest ports in the world, the South-East Asian nation’s economy relies heavily on exports. “Where trade is a means to get goods from A to B for most countries, it is a direct source of income for Singapore,” Robert Carnell, Chief Economist and Head of Research for Asia-Pacific at ING, told World Finance. In fact, according to World Bank data, trade represented 326.2 percent of GDP in Singapore in 2018. “[A] global trade slowdown… is a considerable hit to Singapore’s trade hub role in South-East Asia,” Carnell added.

Unfortunately for Singapore, the simmering trade dispute between the US and China is unlikely to end any time soon, with US President Donald Trump blacklisting (albeit with temporary exemptions) Chinese telecoms firm Huawei and announcing fresh tariffs on $300bn worth of Chinese products in August. And even if Trump were to be ousted in the 2020 US presidential election, Carnell believes a change of leader would not be unambiguously positive for global trade: “What happens next is an open question. Tariffs may be here to stay.”

This prognosis is bad news for Singapore, which recorded its slowest annual rate of growth for a decade in Q2 2019: according to Singapore’s Ministry of Trade and Industry, GDP grew by just 0.1 percent year on year, significantly slower than the 1.1 percent growth that had been registered in Q1. On a quarterly basis, GDP shrank by 3.4 percent. Singapore’s non-oil exports, meanwhile, dropped by their greatest margin for more than six years in June, marking a fourth month of consecutive decline. According to Enterprise Singapore, exports of non-oil products fell by 17.4 and 11.2 percent in June and July respectively when compared with the previous year.

In the short term, Carnell expects economic growth to remain “very sluggish” at a rate that is “well below two percent, and nearer to one percent – if that”. In fact, Singapore cut its 2019 GDP forecast to between zero and one percent, down from 1.5 to 2.5 percent. The IMF, which also trimmed its expectations in July, was slightly more optimistic with a prediction of two percent growth, down from its earlier forecast of 2.3 percent.

With the economy teetering on the edge of recession, Varathan told World Finance that the situation cannot be ignored any longer: “If the trade conflict takes a turn for the worse, then 2020 recession risks start rising.”

The chips are down
Trade troubles have heaped pressure on Singapore at a time when one of its pillars of economic strength, the semiconductor industry, is already faltering. Electronics manufacturing is an important source of economic growth in Singapore: according to the government’s Economic Development Board (EDB), the industry generated $64.8bn in 2015, accounting for more than 31 percent of its total manufacturing output. The industry also employed more than 68,000 workers that year, or 17 percent of Singapore’s total workforce.

Unfortunately for Singapore, the simmering trade dispute between the US and China is unlikely to end any time soon

Singapore is responsible for manufacturing a significant portion of the world’s memory chips, microprocessors and other electronic components, with the EDB calculating that the country’s semiconductor equipment output accounts for approximately 20 percent of the global total. These parts are then shipped out to be used in mobile phones, computers, televisions and cars, as well as many other everyday products.

The sector has enjoyed explosive growth in the past, but the non-profit organisation World Semiconductor Trade Statistics (WSTS) predicted the global semiconductor market would shrink by 12.1 percent in 2019. This decline follows year-on-year growth of 21.6 percent and 13.7 percent in 2017 and 2018 respectively. While the WSTS expects the sector to grow by 5.4 percent in 2020, slowing demand and trade tensions have already led chipmakers in Singapore to reduce production and begin cutting hundreds of jobs, according to an investigation by Reuters.

For instance, John Nelson, President and CEO of UTAC Group, a Singapore-based company that assembles and tests semiconductors, told Reuters the firm’s consolidation process could result in a 10 to 20 percent drop in its local headcount. According to Reuters, local media even reported that AMS, a chipmaker that supplies Apple, had cut as many as 600 jobs in Singapore. Carnell warned that this downturn could worsen as the slump spreads to other industries: “The bulk of the pain right now is in tech, but it is not totally isolated.”

Varathan also expects job cuts to seep beyond the semiconductor industry: “In today’s context, the tech sector job cuts could expand.” He told World Finance that the “cascading effect” of the convergence of numerous trade conflicts around the world could lead to a supply chain backup, causing job losses to start spiralling. With the decline forcing companies to hold back on spending and hiring, Singapore’s continued drive for digitalisation and streamlining will only exacerbate the downturn. “A widening job shock could very well be something that stares us in the face, rather than being a distant risk,” Varathan said.

Others are more optimistic about the immediate future of chipmakers. In an interview with Reuters, Lim Kok Kiang, Assistant Managing Director of the EDB, said the nation remains competitive in the electronics manufacturing sector and has even attracted new investment. Meanwhile, Ang Wee Seng, Executive Director at the Singapore Semiconductor Industry Association, told World Finance that the current bout of slow growth is different from previous downturns in the market, in that demand effectively still exists. The growth of 5G, the Internet of Things and automobile technology will continue to fundamentally drive demand even as trade tensions and supply chain issues mask it.

“The slow growth is happening because of the lack of confidence by the consumer and because of the trade war and trade tensions – that’s why we’re seeing a slowdown,” Ang said. As such, he believes widespread retrenchment and shutdowns are unlikely “because, technically speaking, there is still business”.

With an older population equating to a shrinking labour pool, Singapore will be charged with maintaining economic growth as its workforce dwindles

Silver tsunami
On top of the worsening environment for international trade and the downturn in the semiconductor industry, Singapore faces structural hurdles to growth, including a rapidly approaching demographic time bomb. In recent decades, the city-state has experienced both a sharp decline in fertility and large gains in longevity. According to the Singapore Department of Statistics, the country has one of the world’s highest life expectancies at 83.2 years, while its fertility rate stands at just 1.14.

In its 2017 World Population Ageing report, the UN said Singapore’s population would continue to skew older: “The Republic of Korea and Singapore… are projected to see the largest change in the proportion of persons aged 60 years or over between 2015 and 2030, with increases of about 13 percentage points.” UN data also shows that the median age of Singapore’s population is expected to climb to 46.8 years by 2030, up from 39.7 in 2015 (see Fig 2). By 2050, the number of citizens aged 60 or over is forecast to grow by 137 percent, the report said.

With an older population equating to a shrinking labour pool, Singapore will be charged with maintaining economic growth as its workforce dwindles. To address this, the government has embarked on a programme that prioritises innovation and the upskilling of workers. “Singapore is trying to re-engineer itself as a tech and innovation centre,” Carnell said. “Considerable resources are being aimed at this – from education to infrastructure. [But] in my view, it is very hard to legislate for innovation.”

Ang told World Finance that Singapore’s workforce training programmes are more important than ever: “If anything, [the economic slowdown creates a] bigger objective for companies to upskill their workforce.” Varathan, meanwhile, said retraining programmes are likely to help ease some of the pain of Singapore’s headwinds, but believes they will not be enough on their own: “We have to be very clear – reskilling, upskilling and all of this will help to smooth out the transition, but it wouldn’t completely eliminate the job losses that come about. It is a case of some kind of pain relief.” With the “colliding forces” of greater digitalisation and trade conflicts creating uncertainty around hiring, Varathan said: “It’ll be very difficult to fully address and mitigate against the confluence of challenges.”

Fortunately, Carnell thinks Singapore is “far from helpless” when it comes to taking steps to provide a fiscal stimulus to the economy, as it has one of the world’s largest war chests of reserves to draw upon. He did, however, concede that “strong construction activity in recent years makes the possibility of speeding up infrastructure spending… very difficult”. It is more likely that relief will come in the form of tax breaks for companies providing employment and investment, or for individual incomes as a way of stimulating spending.

In fact, when polled by Reuters in July, seven of 11 economists believed Singapore’s central bank, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS), would ease monetary policy at its biannual meeting in October – an event that had yet to take place at the time of World Finance going to print. MAS, which manages Singapore’s monetary policy by adjusting the exchange rate of the Singapore dollar rather than changing interest rates, tightened monetary policy twice in 2018 by raising the slope of its currency band, causing the Singapore dollar to appreciate. Carnell expects MAS to move to a neutral currency path from its current moderate appreciation. Such a decision, however, could be influenced by any developments to ongoing trade disputes.

The long game
Singapore often acts as a bellwether for the global economy, meaning any bad news for the country is likely to be just a small sign of what’s to come elsewhere. Some, however, view Singapore’s current economic woes as nothing more than a temporary setback, with foreign direct investment (FDI) continuing to flow into the nation.

According to the UN Conference on Trade and Development’s (UNCTAD’s) World Investment Report 2019, FDI inflows reached $78bn in 2018, up three percent from 2017. The city-state was the fourth-largest recipient of FDI last year – behind only the US, China and Hong Kong (see Fig 3) – largely as a result of robust investment in services and a rise in cross-border mergers and acquisitions.

In July, Lin Nguyen, an analyst in South-East Asian regional security who primarily focuses on economic and political activity, wrote in support of the country’s ability to bounce back in the South China Morning Post: “Official opinions that the country is not on the verge of recession are reassuring and underscore its economic fundamentals, making Singapore well-suited to weather any approaching storm.” In fact, even those who believe Singapore faces a bumpy road in the next few years expect the country’s long-term prospects to remain bright. “If Singapore were an equity, not a country, you wouldn’t call it a growth stock right now, but you would consider buying it from a value perspective,” Carnell said.

Slower growth and lower productivity are simply symptoms of Singapore’s transformation into a developed economy. “To some extent, Singapore simply has to get used to it,” Carnell said. “It is now more of a two percent [GDP growth] economy than a three to four percent GDP [growth] economy. That [comes] with development.”

Varathan echoed this sentiment, explaining that Singapore’s neutral growth rate could remain at around three percent moving forward – much lower than the previous average increase of 7.7 percent cited by the World Bank. “Insofar that we don’t compare [it] to the pre-global-financial-crisis days, I think growth will start picking up again in Singapore,” he said. With the property market gaining ground and fintech offering a vibrant space for further innovation and development, Singapore’s prospects do not look so gloomy after all. What’s more, the broader digitalisation drive that the government is leading “would automatically see some spending [and] some jobs [introduced]”, Varathan explained.

Although demographic challenges will remain a constant constraint for Singapore, the technological advances expected to sweep through the global economy in the coming years will provide a sure-fire boost thanks to the country’s grip on the global tech sector. “One day, when 5G becomes more of a reality, Singapore’s tech-ready, innovation-focused economy really will fly,” Carnell said. While these gains may still be a few years off, he added: “There is a period ahead of several years of extremely buoyant growth.”

Today’s economic environment poses a number of challenges to Singapore’s export-reliant economy, but while growth may continue to be hindered by trade wars in the short term, the nation’s long-term approach points to a brighter future. “[Singapore’s] future earnings are not reflected in the current market price [of GDP or the Singapore dollar],” Carnell said. “But as long as you have the patience of Warren Buffett, owning [a stake in] it for the long term could be extremely profitable.”

Tanzania’s hydroelectric dam project charges ahead despite environmental concerns

Ever since he was appointed Tanzania’s president in 2015, John Magufuli has pushed for much-needed industrialisation in the country. As the second-largest economy in the East African Community, Tanzania is often lauded for having huge untapped economic potential, but the country desperately needs to improve its transport links and increase its energy capacity if it is to boost commercial activity and unleash its potential. Magufuli has set himself a tight time frame in which to overhaul the country’s infrastructure, promising to have transformed Tanzania into a middle-income economy by 2025.

To achieve this ambitious goal, Magufuli is championing a number of major development projects. Between 2019 and 2020, the country plans to raise its total spending to $14.16bn, with the funds going towards improving the country’s infrastructure, while at the start of the year, the government revived the defunct Air Tanzania by injecting over $434m into the carrier’s fleet. Plans are also underway to construct another flyover for the Ubungo Interchange and to see the completion of the $14.2bn Tanzania Standard Gauge Railway, which will stretch 2,561km and connect the Dar es Salaam port to Rwanda and Burundi.

The Tanzanian Government has largely ignored the significant impact that the dam will have on the local area and the tourist industry

But the crowning jewel of these megaprojects is the planned construction of a 130m-high, 700m-long hydroelectric dam. According to the Tanzanian Government, the dam – which will be built in Stiegler’s Gorge in the Selous Game Reserve, an area renowned for its outstanding natural beauty – is projected to increase Tanzania’s total electricity capacity generation by 2,115MW. But the project is mired in controversy, with many fearing it could bankrupt the country.

A domino effect
As one of the last remaining great wildernesses in Africa, the Selous Game Reserve is home to some of the continent’s rarest animals, including the black rhinoceros and African wild dog. To build the dam, a 1,000sq km portion of the reserve will need to be stripped of vegetation. Shruti Suresh, Senior Wildlife Campaigner at the Environmental Investigation Agency, warns that this “will inundate a major part of the reserve and have a significant impact on the functioning of the Selous ecosystem”.

Unsurprisingly, news of the dam’s construction within the reserve’s borders has provoked international outrage. In a landmark move, UNESCO threatened to remove the Selous Reserve from its World Heritage List – something it has done only twice before. Meanwhile, the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) has condemned the project, calling it “fatally flawed” for its limited scope. “The current discussion is only focusing on the direct footprint of the dam and reservoir,” the IUCN said in a statement. “This is a dangerously narrow viewpoint as the impact will be much greater and far-reaching.”

According to independent research conducted by the World Wide Fund for Nature in 2017, the dam’s construction could have knock-on effects for the Rufiji-Mafia-Kilwa Marine Ramsar Site. Towns and communities in this area are dependent on the Rufiji River for fish; if the water supply to this area was to be diminished, the livelihoods of 200,000 people could be put at risk.

The dam is also likely to deliver a significant blow to Tanzania’s tourist industry: the majority of the one million tourists who visit Tanzania every year come for its wildlife safaris. It’s highly likely that, by destroying a huge expanse of the Selous Game Reserve and disrupting local wildlife, the region will see a dip in visitor numbers.

But the Tanzanian Government has largely ignored the significant impact the dam will have on the local area and the tourist industry. Usually, impact assessments help governments and developers to steer clear of heavy indirect costs – in fact, impact assessments are required under national law. However, in the case of the Stiegler’s Gorge project, none were carried out.

The closest the project got to a proper assessment was an analysis by the Consultancy Bureau of the University of Dar es Salaam, but experts in the industry consider this to be inadequate. This concern was highlighted by Joerg Hartmann, a consultant on hydropower sustainability, in his independent report on the dam’s feasibility. Hartmann wrote: “Compared to international good practice in hydropower, this is an unacceptably superficial level of information.”

Full steam ahead
Despite international bodies warning of unforeseen costs and even openly condemning the project, Tanzania is ploughing ahead. Magufuli maintains that it will become a linchpin of the country’s industrialisation. “Beginning today, this will indicate Tanzania is an independent country… and not a poor country,” he announced at the dam’s inauguration.

Yet Magufuli’s confidence has not appeased those who continue to question the project’s economic viability. Even without factoring in the indirect costs to tourism and local communities, the sum of money put aside for the project is considerable. In 2018, $307m was allocated for the dam’s construction, while the total cost of the dam is expected to reach $3.6bn, according to disgraced construction firm Odebrecht, which carried out the initial economic analysis.

Hartmann believes it could be even more than that, though, estimating that the project could cost the country closer to $9.85bn – almost triple what the Tanzanian Government has budgeted for. This would make it “the costliest investment in the history of Tanzania”, he wrote.

The government has promised that the dam will bring economic benefits – such as more employment opportunities – to the region, but this claim so far seems unsubstantiated. While Energy and Minerals Minister Medard Kalemani has announced the project will create 3,000 to 5,000 jobs, it is likely that many of these will simply go to the skilled engineers and labourers brought in by foreign construction companies, not to local citizens.

If the cost of construction overruns as much as Hartmann predicts, this will have wide-reaching implications for foreign direct investment in the country. The more indebted the Tanzanian Government becomes, the less willing investors will be to do business with the country, trapping the Tanzanian economy in a downward spiral rather than modernising it.

Bulldozing in
It could be argued that this is simply the price of industrialisation; there is no doubt that electrification would bring a much-needed economic boost to the country. Around 37 million Tanzanians have no access to mains electricity – a huge proportion in a country of 57 million. This hinders both its competitiveness and its attractiveness as an investment destination, with investors having long cited this lack of reliable power as one of the chief obstacles to doing business in Tanzania.

The new hydroelectric dam would change this, and could even help realise Magufuli’s ambition to boost the electrification rate to 90 percent by 2035. However, concerns have been raised over whether the dam will even be able to fulfil its core function: in his study, Hartmann uncovered that, without significant improvements to the country’s ageing power infrastructure, much of the energy generated by the dam would be unusable. “If Stiegler’s Gorge were to operate at full capacity, all other components of the Tanzanian grid would have to be approximately doubled to deliver the power to domestic consumers,” he wrote in his report.

What’s more, the dam might not even produce as much electricity as the government claims: its impressive 2,115MW figure comes from a feasibility study carried out more than 25 years ago. Since then, the river has shrunk by about 25 percent due to a number of severe droughts. With even its energy capacity being thrown into question, the dam looks increasingly like an unjustifiably expensive vanity project incapable of bringing the economic benefit the government promises.

Once one of Africa’s success stories, Tanzania is now in peril. Until recently, the country enjoyed relative political stability; each year, it attracted foreign direct investment worth an average of four percent of GDP. Now Magufuli is threatening to turn back the clock on decades of progress.

Nicknamed ‘the bulldozer’ for his forceful interventions, Magufuli has undermined Tanzania’s international standing throughout his tenure. In 2017, he accused Acacia, a London-listed mining company, of owing the country $190bn in unpaid taxes – a sum nearly four times Tanzania’s GDP. The company denies the allegation. Such bullish behaviour appears to have knocked investor confidence; the country has seen foreign direct investment more than halve since 2013 (see Fig 1).

He has also consistently undermined human rights in the country, with opposition politicians being shot and newspapers shut down. He recently drew widespread criticism for imprisoning the journalist Erick Kabendera as part of a concerted effort to limit press freedom. It has been made clear that critics of the dam will be silenced too. Kangi Lugola, the country’s minister for home affairs, said in a statement: “Those who are resisting the project will be jailed.”

The hydroelectric dam is an economic catastrophe waiting to happen. But it’s also a catastrophe of Magufuli’s own making; to back down now would be to admit defeat in his eyes. If the project does go ahead, the hydroelectric dam will indeed be part of Magufuli’s legacy, an homage to the relentless and single-minded way he drove the country – whether towards financial success or ruin remains to be seen.

Learning to earn: why ongoing financial education is vital for online traders

Financial education is the ultimate investment a trader can make. And yet, its value is often underestimated. Many enter the world of online brokerage with a certain degree of self-taught knowledge. While this can prove useful, without further guidance, traders are prone to overestimating their expertise – in fact, a recent OECD financial literacy survey found that most individuals rate themselves as having a higher level of financial knowledge than they actually possess. Trading is a skill just like any other, and neglecting to take one’s education seriously can have significant consequences.

Online brokers have become increasingly aware of the knowledge deficit that exists among their clientele, and a number have begun to realise the benefits of providing this much-needed education as a service. World Finance spoke to Ergin Erdemir, Head of Marketing at ATFX, to learn more about the educational tools the company provides.

What does ATFX offer to online global investors?
ATFX is a leading online forex and contract for difference (CFD) broker. Over the past few years, the platform has gone from strength to strength, providing exceptional customer service around the world in all major languages. In a stringent industry, ATFX wants to stand out by offering its clients unique services that provide them with better value for money. This includes ultra-low spreads and zero commission, as well as access to more than 200 financial products. Ultimately, we are dedicated to giving clients the best possible trading experience.

Can you tell us about the recent ESMA regulations and how they’ve affected your products?
Last year, the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) introduced a number of restrictions on the marketing, distribution and sale of CFD products to increase investor protection within the EU. ATFX has welcomed this legislation: we have always put traders’ interests at the forefront of our business, so this new regulation actually supports our brand values.

ATFX wants to encourage secure and efficient trading within what is a highly competitive and volatile sector. To do this, we ensure that our team is there for our clients throughout their trading journey and that each trader is well equipped to face the markets. ESMA’s product intervention is significant and something our company does not take lightly. As such, ATFX adheres to all of the relevant regulations while still offering highly competitive spreads and charging no commission, reducing the cost of trading for our clients.

What educational services does ATFX offer and why did the company decide to introduce them?
Despite the increased protection clients now benefit from, ATFX has found that many new and existing traders still struggle to enter and navigate financial markets. We realised that we could help our clients overcome these challenges by offering a bespoke service that engages with traders on a one-to-one basis. This exclusive education tool is available to both beginners and experienced traders who want to enhance their knowledge of financial markets.

As part of this programme, ATFX’s Global Chief Market Strategist, Alejandro Zambrano, delivers a daily webinar to discuss the state of the market and provide real-time insights to traders. In addition to this, he personally coaches existing and prospective clients through in-house seminars. In these seminars, Zambrano discusses how to manage risk through methods such as stop-loss and limit orders, technical analysis, fundamental analysis and trading psychology.

Education is a core part of what we do; ATFX wants its clients to fully understand the basics of trading and what is at stake. We don’t offer a rose-tinted view of trading – instead, we provide accurate, reliable and trustworthy information regarding risk, risk management, trading strategies and in-depth market analysis.

Despite the increased protection clients now benefit from, ATFX has found that many new and existing traders still struggle to enter and navigate financial markets

What are ATFX’s ambitions for the coming years?
ATFX is committed to expanding its services. In particular, we plan to take our education strategy beyond the UK market and into the rest of Europe. Another key goal we are working towards is making our services more accessible. With this in mind, we are currently developing a mobile app that will allow our clients to trade with absolute flexibility. Trading on the move can be difficult, so we hope this new app will give traders full access to their account and help them manage their portfolios with ease when they’re on the go.

We have also launched a new institutional offering aimed at high-net-worth individuals, funds, proprietary vehicles and retail broker aggregates. This new service provides clients with bespoke liquidity, competitive spreads and 24-hour pricing. We are dedicated to providing a seamless and effective interface for our institutional clients with simplicity, speed and reliability at its core.

ATFX prides itself on its customer-centric service. By dedicating efforts to enhancing clients’ trading experience, ATFX believes it will continue to be one of the world’s leading forex and CFD brokers.

Surveillance cameras have become one of China’s most valuable exports – here’s why

China’s citizens live under the most oppressive surveillance regime in the world. Each day, the Chinese are monitored by more than 200 million cameras, many of which have been installed since President Xi Jinping became paramount leader of the Asian nation in 2013. Not only do these devices surveil citizens as they go about their daily routines, they also feed this information back to a central government database, where it is used to determine each person’s position in society through China’s infamous social credit system.

Given the scale of the country’s mass surveillance regime, it is little surprise that China is also the market leader when it comes to the facilitatory technology. Around 30 percent of global video surveillance revenue is collected by three Chinese firms – Hikvision, Dahua Technology and Uniview Technologies – while the country as a whole was forecast to account for 46 percent of revenues in that market in 2018. The cameras that Chinese firms are producing are years ahead of those made by any other nation, utilising the most advanced artificial intelligence (AI) and facial recognition software on the market today.

Supply and demand
Mass surveillance has been a facet of China’s political regime since the 1950s, but it has become more widespread as access to intelligence-gathering technology – including video cameras, computer monitoring programs and facial recognition software – has improved. “Today, China uses CCTV and face recognition to restrict freedom of movement,” explained Paul Bischoff, an online privacy expert and editor of Comparitech. “People can be placed on blacklists that restrict certain types of travel. [Surveillance] is also being used to oppress dissidents and minority groups, for example, in Xinjiang.”

Ecuador has claimed that the Chinese-built surveillance system, which was completed last year, is being used to bring down murder rates in the notoriously violent country

Due to this political demand, China’s domestic video surveillance market has grown an estimated four to five times faster than that of any other nation. As of 2018, it was worth approximately $20bn. Its growth has also been aided by the nature of China’s manufacturing sector, which is able to produce high volumes of equipment at low prices. “This has made CCTV surveillance much cheaper,” Bischoff said. Chinese firms such as Hikvision and Dahua have been able to drastically reduce prices to a level that few international manufacturers could meet profitably in the long term, according to a 2017 report by research consultancy Memoori. What’s more, given the existing dominance of China’s manufacturers in the domestic market, there’s little chance of a western manufacturer being able to gain a foothold.

As the country’s surveillance regime has intensified under President Xi, the camera technology it relies on has become more advanced. Where previously cameras were simply able to record events taking place within their line of vision, they are now able to identify citizens appearing in footage through powerful facial recognition software, and store information regarding their activities on government databases. Facilitatory technology for these new capabilities is provided by a handful of domestic AI firms, the largest being Megvii, which was established in 2011 by three graduates from Beijing’s famed Tsinghua University. Last year, the firm reported revenues of CNY 1.4bn ($197.4m), quadruple its 2017 takings.

Going global
Until recently, China’s surveillance sector mostly concerned itself with domestic supply – there was little need to look overseas given the level of internal market demand. Around 2011, however, the country spied an economic opportunity and began partnering with other nations that were looking to expand their own domestic surveillance programmes. “China is now exporting its model of… surveillance around the world, offering trainings, seminars and study trips, as well as advanced equipment that takes advantage of AI and facial recognition technologies,” wrote pro-democracy research group Freedom House in its Freedom in the World 2019 report.

One of its first clients was Ecuador, which purchased a basic version of the system that was used to watch Beijing’s residents during the 2008 Summer Olympic Games. Two Chinese firms – the state-controlled China National Electronics Import and Export Corporation and Huawei – predominantly made the 4,300-strong camera network, named ECU-911 by the Ecuadorian Government.

Ecuador has claimed that the Chinese-built system, which was completed last year, is being used to bring down murder rates in the notoriously violent country. But while the system’s implementation has coincided with a drop in overall crime, Ecuadorians have conversely claimed that attacks are still widespread, and even take place in plain sight of the cameras. Concerns have now been raised that the software is being used by the country’s feared intelligence agency, SENAIN, to trail, intimidate and even imprison political opponents of President Rafael Correa.

This latter application of the surveillance network has piqued the interest of other leaders who are seeking to quell political opposition within their own countries. Replicas of Ecuador’s system have also been sold to Venezuela, Bolivia and Angola, all of which operate highly authoritarian and repressive regimes. In total, China has exported surveillance technology to at least 54 countries, according to research by Steven Feldstein, holder of the Frank and Bethine Church Chair of Public Affairs at Boise State University. This has dangerous implications for democracy within those nations. “Surveillance can have a chilling effect on freedom of movement, assembly, speech and expression,” Bischoff told World Finance. “Someone who knows they’re being watched might be afraid to visit a religious place of worship or a political rally.”

China’s domestic video surveillance market has grown an estimated four to five times faster than that of any other nation and, as of 2018, is worth approximately $20bn

Cutting ties
Media attention has tended to focus on China’s relationship with nations operating authoritarian regimes, but this focus overlooks the fact that Chinese surveillance technology has been in use for several years in established democracies such as the US and UK. In 2016, the Peterson Air Force Base in Colorado spent $112,000 on a surveillance camera network made by Hikvision, a company that is 42 percent owned by the Chinese Government. Cameras made by the same firm also watch over a navy research base in Florida.

The US started buying equipment from the Chinese manufacturer in 2010, after Hikvision began undercutting American firms. In the UK, meanwhile, cameras made by Hikvision and Dahua are in use across the London Underground. It has also been alleged that they have been installed within the Houses of Parliament, although this was refuted by a House of Commons spokesperson.

In recent months, however, these two nations have begun terminating their relationships with Chinese firms over security concerns. Last year, US President Donald Trump signed the National Defence Authorisation Act, which prevents federal agencies from purchasing equipment from Hikvision and Dahua, while the UK Government has reportedly banned Huawei from participating in its rollout of 5G. Although this will not have a significant impact on revenue for any of the firms, all of whom do most of their business on the Chinese mainland, it certainly puts an end to China’s expansionary vision when it comes to surveillance technology.

The real economic risk for China lies in its relationships with countries such as Ecuador, where it has had to provide loans to the government in order to fund the sale of its own surveillance technology. ECU-911 came with a $240m price tag, which was well beyond Ecuador’s purchasing power and forced the nation to borrow money from China to pay for the system. What’s more, it’s highly unlikely that China will be able to call in that loan any time soon, especially when you consider that Ecuador already owes the country an estimated $6.5bn. It’s the same story across Africa, where China has lent vast sums of money to a number of nations in order to fund surveillance technology projects at a time when its global development strategy, the Belt and Road Initiative, has left it vastly overexposed in the region.

Although China’s economic growth is in the black and its debt burden is manageable, its current trade war with the US is weighing heavily on exports, meaning the consequences of the country’s overexposure could soon come home to roost. China’s domestic surveillance market will, of course, continue to thrive given domestic demand, but its international ambitions are already under threat due to global debt. While this may be bad news for the Chinese economy, it’s certainly good news for global democracy.

Crimea doesn’t pay: assessing the economic impact of Russia’s annexation

In the early hours of February 23, 2014, as most of Moscow lay sleeping, Russian President Vladimir Putin sat in the Kremlin among his most trusted advisors. The political situation in Ukraine had become increasingly volatile, and Russia could not sit back and allow the crisis to simply run its course. Putin ended the meeting with a bold proclamation: “We must start working on returning Crimea to Russia.” A little over three weeks later, he had achieved his goal, with both states signing the Treaty on Accession of the Republic of Crimea to Russia.

In the five years that have passed since Crimea rejoined the Russian Federation, the peninsula’s economy appears to be showing few ill effects. On the contrary, things are going better than ever: in Q1 2019, Crimea grew faster than any other region in Russia. Sevastopol, a city within Crimea that Russia administers separately, followed in second place.

The peninsula’s success, however, is a little misleading. Since 2014, Moscow has pumped huge sums of money into the Crimean economy, funding a number of large infrastructure projects of dubious value. This expenditure has not only created the pretence of prosperity – it has also proved a monumental drain on Russia’s finances at a time when international sanctions are beginning to bite.

Paint the town red
In March 2019, thousands paraded through the streets of Crimea’s capital, Simferopol. They recited songs celebrating five years since the region’s reunification with Mother Russia, wore Cossack costumes and proudly waved Russian and Crimean flags above their heads. The celebrations, which lasted four days, were deemed to be of such importance that Putin himself attended.

If the West is intent on isolating Crimea, the peninsula will have to look eastward instead

The festivities were not simply an outpouring of nationalist fervour, though: for many in Crimea, things seem to have genuinely improved since the peninsula came under Moscow’s control. On paper, they certainly have: according to reports from Russian media company RBC, Sevastopol’s construction sector expanded by 70.9 percent in Q1 2019, while Crimea’s swelled 20.7 percent. Manufacturing in the two regions also grew by 5.2 and 20.2 percent respectively.

“According to [the Russian Federal State Statistics Service (Rosstat)], in terms of… growth in manufacturing production between 2014 and 2017, Crimea and Sevastopol were the champions,” Alexander Skorobogatov, a professor at the Higher School of Economics in Saint Petersburg and author of a blog entitled Economics and Applications, told World Finance. “Subsidies have played an important role, but… the state’s promotion of the peninsula as a health resort and the ongoing infrastructure projects heavily contribute, too.”

Economic growth has predominantly been fuelled by large-scale developments like the 18.1km-long Kerch Strait Bridge, which opened in May 2018 and cost $3.7bn to build. Other projects include a pipeline supplying natural gas from Krasnodar Krai, a new passenger terminal at Simferopol International Airport and the yet-to-be-completed construction of the Tavrida highway.

“The infrastructure projects – the new bridges and roads – induce… construction and related industries,” Skorobogatov said. “In addition, the state supports the agricultural sector, which leads to growing outputs. Tourism, after some decline because of lower visitor numbers from Ukraine, is now recovering. This, in turn, boosts the wholesale and retail industries.”

And while Crimea has suffered from significantly reduced trade with its European neighbours – Ukraine formally ceased all trade with the peninsula in 2015 – the region has forged workarounds, usually involving the Russian port of Novorossiysk. New export opportunities are also being explored: for instance, Russia has plans to build a grain terminal in Crimea that will reportedly increase shipments to Syria fivefold. Moves like this will help plug the economic gap to an extent, but bigger prizes are also being targeted. Collaboration with China is one major consideration, particularly given its Belt and Road Initiative. If the West is intent on isolating Crimea, the peninsula will have to look eastward instead.

From Russia with love
While the Crimean economy has done well on a surface level since its annexation, the region has received more than a little bit of help. Huge subsidies from Moscow have been a mainstay since 2014, fluctuating between $1bn and $2.7bn per annum (see Fig 1). These figures are not necessarily putting a significant strain on Russia’s economy, which is the world’s 12th-largest by nominal GDP, but they do appear to be contributing to a slowdown (see Fig 2).

Just a few months after Crimea formally rejoined the Russian Federation, Moscow launched a programme called the Socioeconomic Development in the Republic of Crimea and the City of Sevastopol. The initiative has a budget of RUB 669.6bn ($10.06bn), 95.9 percent of which comes directly from Russia’s federal budget.

Inefficiencies quickly became apparent, though. Keen to capitalise on the sense of patriotism spreading among ethnic Russians living on the Crimean peninsula, Russia drafted and implemented its federal programme rapidly after completing the annexation – perhaps too rapidly. Budgets were exceeded, targets were missed and, of course, any money being funnelled into Crimea could not be spent on the rest of the Russian Federation.

In 2017, only 10 new roadways were built across what is the world’s largest country by land area, in spite of the fact that it was gearing up to host a global showpiece event in the form of the 2018 FIFA World Cup. In fact, Russia has long lagged behind western states when it comes to infrastructural development. According to World Highways data, the country’s high-speed road network covers just 5,000km at present. By comparison, Germany, a country some 48 times smaller than Russia by land area, boasts around 13,000km.

“The subsidies are made at the expense of the rest of the Russian economy, but relatively, this should not be too burdensome,” Skorobogatov told World Finance. “The statistics suggest that a lot – if not the majority – of Russian regions depend on subsidies, and the Crimean peninsula is no exception. As for the attitude of Russian citizens, public opinion polls repeatedly report positive moods as a whole regarding the peninsula.

“People normally treat the situation with Crimea as one where the state has taken necessary and fair action to protect the people there and return territories previously lost due to policies that are now considered deeply fallacious and unfair. Therefore, Russian citizens believe it is a worthwhile sacrifice, especially since the sacrifice is not that great.”

Although still largely positive, the outlook throughout the rest of Russia has deteriorated as citizens have seen money that could have been used in other regions consistently pumped into Crimea. Research undertaken in March by Russia’s Public Opinion Foundation found that only 39 percent of citizens still believed that the annexation caused Russia more good than harm, down significantly from 67 percent in 2014.

“The prodigious sums spent on the Kerch Bridge have been criticised; not so much the subsidies to the Crimean economy,” explained Professor Philip Hanson, an associate fellow of the Russia and Eurasia programme at Chatham House. “Now that the ‘Crimean consensus’ in Russia is beginning to fade, one might expect more such criticism. Meanwhile, special treatment for Crimea does not seem to rank high [on] the list of grumbles.”

On the whole, then, public opinion appears to be mixed. As the half-decade celebrations earlier this year demonstrated, many citizens still believe that the decision to reclaim Crimea was the right one. Emotion often trumps economics, and even those based elsewhere in the Russian Federation who have had to watch Moscow pump money into vanity projects across the peninsula may feel it is a price worth paying.

Closing rank
Speaking to World Finance, Hanson underlined the notion that the occupation of Crimea is about more than financial gain: “I can’t think of any economic benefits that Russia might gain from controlling Crimea that would not have been available via friendly trade and investment with an independent Ukraine.” It is not difficult, however, to determine other reasons for the annexation.

In March, more than 500 troops from the Russian Black Sea Fleet’s ground force took part in a tactical exercise on the Crimean peninsula. On July 11, more than 2,000 Russian paratroopers landed at the region’s Naimanskaya military site. These are just two examples of the kind of drills that have become commonplace in Crimea since 2014.

This militarisation has helped Russia maintain an economic stranglehold on the rest of Ukraine. In particular, businesses have found that Russia is creating issues for cargo travelling to and from ports along the Sea of Azov. According to a report by the Financial Times, in the six months or so that followed the opening of the Kerch Strait Bridge in May 2018, the average delay for vessels travelling to the Ukrainian ports of Mariupol and Berdyansk rose from seven hours to more than five days.

The militarisation of Crimea has helped Russia maintain an economic stranglehold on the rest of Ukraine

By May 2019, these hold-ups had been reduced to around 40 hours – an improvement, but still the sort of delay that severely disrupts supply chains and causes businesses to go bust. According to the Ukrainian Government, cargo passing through Berdyansk and Mariupol has dropped by almost 50 percent and 70 percent respectively since Russia’s annexation of Crimea. Russia is using its newfound control of the Kerch Strait to flex its naval muscles and damage Ukraine’s economic interests in the region.

Evidently, ownership of the Crimean peninsula is of military importance to Russia, but this militarisation has also had knock-on effects for the regional economy – both positive and negative. “The military contingent creates a demand for various non-traded goods and thus stimulates the Crimean economy,” Skorobogatov said. “Meanwhile, there are signs of diminishing competition in some industries, such as transport and trade. This follows naturally from larger Russian firms entering the peninsula and replacing their smaller counterparts. This is… part of a broader process going [on] in most of the Russian regions.”

This trend has hit entrepreneurialism hard, with SMEs increasingly being squeezed out. According to a report by The Ukrainian Week, there were 15,553 private SMEs and 116,200 entrepreneurs in Crimea in 2014. By July 2018, these figures had plummeted to 1,382 and 55,328 respectively. As a result, the proportion of the Crimean workforce employed by small businesses has declined from 35 percent to 19.5.

Russia’s militarisation of Crimea has been comprehensive. While the assembled land, sea and air forces may have avoided much active combat, they could hardly be described as defensive. Already they have caused significant damage to Ukrainian trade and reshaped the Crimean economy through their presence alone, with army bases and artillery depots replacing the small businesses that once thrived on the peninsula.

In March, more than 500 troops from the Russian Black Sea Fleet’s ground force took part in a tactical exercise on the Crimean peninsula. This kind of drill has become commonplace in Crimea since 2014

Reduced to ruble
The construction of a bridge crossing the Kerch Strait may have connected Crimea to the rest of the Russian Federation, but in general, the annexation has had an isolating effect on the region. In the aftermath of the seizure, Ukraine severed rail and road links to the peninsula and cut off water supplies. In late 2015, Crimean Tatar activists blew up four electricity pylons in opposition to Russia’s annexation. Ties to the Ukrainian mainland are now significantly diminished compared to where they were before 2014.

The rest of the world is also keen to turn the peninsula into a pariah. The EU currently prohibits the importation of products originating in Crimea or Sevastopol, and bans investment in the two regions. Even the provision of technical assistance is forbidden. The US, Canada and, of course, Ukraine have also imposed economic sanctions on individuals and businesses operating in Crimea. An analysis conducted by Bloomberg Economics suggests that wider sanctions have reduced the size of the Russian economy by as much as six percent in the past five years. Low oil prices have hardly helped.

“Of course, economic sanctions have had an impact on the Crimean economy,” Skorobogatov said. “Among the sectors being affected are tourism, trade, banking, cellular communications, transport, manufacturing – in fact, all industries. Due to the sanctions, even many Russian… firms (from banking and communications) are not entering the peninsula, which, in turn, restricts its development.”

As well as preventing incoming investment, the economic straitjacket that Crimea finds itself in means money that would normally be spent domestically is escaping. Most western companies will not work in the area; if Russian firms cannot supply certain products or services, then people have to leave the region to acquire them.

“For a while, Visa and Mastercard weren’t working in Crimea, and although they are back now, Russian banks have… had to open more branches on the peninsula,” Nataliya Gumenyuk, an international reporter and head of the Hromadske Network, told World Finance. “In Crimea, there are no Ukrainian, Belarusian or… western goods, only those produced in Russia. Online payment systems do not work, so things are not delivered. For sure, any kind of small business connected to international payment systems or importing goods from outside Crimea has had to cease operating. Trade with Ukraine is non-existent. Crimea needs to import everything from Russia, which makes things more expensive.”

Russia’s $1.65trn economy can probably afford to prop up Crimea without much difficulty, but Crimean citizens may start to question whether this is the reality they envisioned when the annexation was taking place. Did they realise that turning towards Moscow meant turning their backs on the rest of the world?

Stuck in limbo
Sound bites emanating from Moscow claim that Crimea is doing better than ever, but economic metrics from the West state that sanctions are biting hard. As is often the case with Russia, it is difficult to know what to believe. It’s true that wages have risen markedly since the annexation, but so too has the cost of living. What’s more, while Crimea and Sevastopol have both grown rapidly, they remain among Russia’s poorest regions.

“Measuring real incomes in Russia as a whole is tricky,” Hanson said. “The official numbers show a net fall in per-capita real disposable incomes for the Russian population between 2014 and the first half of 2019. If real incomes have declined in Crimea, it would be part of a national experience. The same is true of inflation, which touched an annual rate in Russia of 17 percent in 2015. The average money income figures for Crimea and for Sevastopol show them as rising relative to the national average in 2015-18, though remaining below that average figure.”

If Russian firms cannot supply certain products or services, then people have to leave Crimea to acquire them

Perhaps most troubling of all is the fact that, five years after the annexation took place, the peninsula’s long-term fate remains up in the air. Most of the world still considers it a Ukrainian territory, but Ukrainian citizens must pass through a government checkpoint before making their way to Russian passport control to gain entry into Crimea. Why would businesses, either domestic or international, choose to operate in such a climate of uncertainty?

Although Chinese firms may come to Crimea’s aid, even this is far from guaranteed. Crimea’s population stands at around two million – perhaps not large enough of an incentive for businesses to risk being hit by sanctions at a time when global trade tensions are already inflamed. As a result, the likelihood of the region seeing much long-term investment – outside of what Russia sends its way – remains slim.

The wider corporate world may have taken a dim view of Russia’s annexation of Crimea, but that isn’t necessarily representative of the opinions being voiced on the streets of Simferopol and Sevastopol. “Surveys repeatedly show that the vast majority of Crimean citizens are happy about rejoining Russia – this mood has remained consistent,” Skorobogatov said. “My personal experience of talking with people from the peninsula is fully in line with the results of these polls.”

Gumenyuk has a different view, however: “No, I wouldn’t agree that there is optimism. I was in Crimea during the ‘anniversary’ and, yes, there was a small group of pro-Russians, but this is a marginal group. Most of the people are simply trying to adjust to the new reality of living in Crimea.”

Disinformation, unpredictability and confusion help explain why such opposing observations can exist alongside one another. These three strings of Putin’s political bow have proved hugely effective at catching the West off guard; they’re less successful when it comes to attracting investment. In Crimea – where the economy is concerned, at least – it appears there is more work to be done.

Aquashield is shoring up piracy protection with the latest innovations in maritime technology

Piracy is a persistent threat for any business operating at sea. Although the number of pirate attacks in the Somali Sea has fallen over the past few years, there has been a significant rise in criminal activity along the coast of West Africa: according to Raconteur, the Gulf of Guinea alone accounted for more than 40 percent of the world’s incidents of maritime piracy in Q1 2018. When rates of piracy increase in a particular area, maritime operators tend to respond by hiring armed security teams. While these teams can be a highly effective means of protecting a ship, they alone cannot guarantee its safety.

No ship’s defences are truly complete without the latest maritime safety technology. Only technology can ensure ships are constantly monitored for threats and are never left unguarded. At Aquashield Oil and Marine Services, our technology meets every security need – from monitoring possible threats and proactively defending against attack to protecting the crew and cargo in the event of a worst-case attack scenario.

The first line of defence
It’s critical that vessels detect potential threats as early as possible to give the crew enough time to respond effectively. Today’s maritime surveillance systems are more advanced than ever and are highly effective at identifying suspicious activities. This is partly because these systems enable the sharing of data between multiple agencies and nations. As a result, operators can receive updates on locations known to have higher levels of pirate-related activity and steer clear of such areas.

To truly safeguard against the threat of piracy, operators must harness state-of-the-art technology

Real-time monitoring of the area surrounding the ship can also provide operators with a comprehensive view of any nearby threats. High-definition cameras with thermal imaging allow crew members to spot pirate vessels and their operators from miles away. Additionally, the use of artificial intelligence within such systems helps to determine when vessels are displaying threatening behaviours, giving ships the upper hand on pirate vessels and increasing the likelihood of avoiding confrontation.

If a vessel in the vicinity appears to be on the attack, the best course of action is to try and immobilise it using non-lethal methods. For this reason, Aquashield equips all of its vessels with an entanglement system that uses compressed air to launch a plastic cylinder in the direction of another ship. As the cylinder launches, netting or rope is immediately released and spread around the vessel. Both the netting and rope are buoyant, so they remain floating on the water until they’re entangled in the ship’s propeller, causing the engine to immediately grind to a halt.

Protecting crew and cargo
Operators must be prepared for every eventuality. If all other defences have failed and the ship is in imminent danger of being seized by pirates, there are still a number of measures the crew can take to protect themselves and the ship’s cargo. A lockdown is an emergency protocol used to prevent movement to and from a certain area inside the ship. While a lockdown is in effect, doors will be sealed and computing systems may be shut down. In this way, a lockdown can be used to stop invaders from gaining control of the ship and keep the crew out of harm’s way.

Safe rooms – commonly referred to as ‘citadels’ aboard ships – have a similar function, providing a retreat for crew members in the event of an attack. These rooms are usually installed in a concealed location within the ship. From here, the crew can call for help and wait in safety until it arrives. Some safe rooms will also give the crew the capacity to remotely disable the ship’s engines and electronic systems, so that pirates cannot sail the ship to another location. Even if the citadel is discovered, safe rooms are armoured against direct physical attack, hugely reducing the risk of kidnapping or loss of life.

To truly safeguard against the threat of piracy, operators must harness state-of-the-art technology – this is true whether the vessel is an oil tanker, a naval ship or a cruise liner. By having the right precautions in place, maritime businesses not only protect their crew members and cargo, but also enjoy the full confidence of their clients, who can rest assured they are taking no risks when it comes to security.

A defensive investment: the rise of multifamily housing in the US

The US multifamily housing sector has long been characterised by robust cash-on-cash yields and low volatility, offering a defensive investment alternative throughout economic cycles. It has also been buoyed by strong demand dynamics from a large and growing renting population in the US, with renting being the preferred housing option for Millennials and Generation Z due to a number of social and economic factors. These include delayed marriage and childbearing, as well as a desire to maintain mobility and not be tied down to long-term mortgages.

Over the past few years, the renting population has faced an almost perfect storm: despite the long economic growth cycle, wage gains have been mostly modest and have not matched rising home prices; climbing student debt has prevented new graduates from saving for a down payment on a house; and the housing market’s high construction costs have pushed developers away from delivering starter homes to the market. Unfortunately, these trends look set to continue in the coming decade.

In the aftermath of the global financial crisis, markets reverted to requiring the typical 20 percent deposit on home purchases; consequently, the relatively dire economic situation faced by young adults has reduced their ability to qualify for home loans. According to the US Census Bureau, these factors have seen US homeownership rates drop to 64 percent from pre-crisis peaks of 69 percent, while ownership for young adults has reached near-record lows. Over the past couple of years, demand for rental housing has continued to exceed new supply, with net absorption increasing and rents continuing to rise. Despite high deliveries, occupancy rates remain high at 96 percent, according to figures released by the CBRE Group for Q2 2019.

The relatively dire economic situation faced by young adults has reduced their ability to qualify for home loans

Multifamily housing benefits
At SFO Group, we particularly favour the multifamily sector due to its resilience in a downturn, especially the mid-level (Class B) component of it. During the global financial crisis, occupancy decreased to a very acceptable level, while uninterrupted rental incomes of reasonably indebted assets allowed for debt repayment and undisrupted operations.

Multifamily housing also benefits from three aspects specific to the sector: first, there are the federal government’s agency programmes, which supply the market with steady financing on more favourable terms than the private market. Second, there is a shorter depreciation period for residential investment assets. And finally, the one-year leases that are typical of multifamily housing allow rents to rapidly adjust to changing market conditions, providing an effective hedge against inflation and rising interest rates.

With investors increasingly needing to optimise their asset allocation – especially in the later stages of the economic cycle – SFO Group’s US multifamily housing strategy continues to garner interest. Launched in 2016, it caters primarily to investors who seek to earn long-term, risk-adjusted income streams, and provides a hedge against potential inflation. Following a top-down approach, we focus on large, non-gateway cities across the US that exhibit defensive characteristics and sustained growth, and identify strategic locations within these cities – these are typically in areas with major employment and transportation hubs. Further, we focus on high-quality assets within these locations, making acquisitions at a discount to allow for value to be added by way of renovation, thus delivering both current income and capital appreciation.

Finding the right locations
Our geographical focus covers cities that benefit from low costs of living, have business-friendly and competitive fiscal environments, are home to leading universities, and offer a large talent pool. We particularly favour the south-eastern region of the US, which has seen high population growth (buoyed by domestic migration) and has posted the country’s strongest multifamily performance metrics. A case in point is Dallas, Texas, which is leading the nation in terms of employment growth. As such, we currently own more than 1,300 units in the city.

Another key location is Atlanta, Georgia: home to 16 Fortune 500 companies, Atlanta positions itself as the economic powerhouse of the south-east and is one of the top US markets in terms of job creation. With this in mind, we acquired approximately 500 units close to Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport, which is one of the world’s busiest airports and the city’s largest employer. The Washington DC metropolitan area is also an interesting proposition, with high levels of absorption (supported by strong population growth), an increasingly diversified economy and a slower development pipeline pushing rents higher.

In line with our strategy, our acquisitions in this sector focus on delivering a defensive alternative to investors. Overall, SFO Group’s US multifamily housing portfolio exceeds 3,000 units and is spread across the states of Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Ohio and Texas, providing a stable and well-diversified source of income for investors.

On the money: why Ross McEwan can take National Australia Bank forward

“Banks need to come back and focus on those core customers, and that will generate a lot more competition in this market”

Ross McEwan

Ross McEwan is known as something of a firefighter in the financial services sector. Throughout his two-decade-long leadership career, the Kiwi banker has been called upon to extinguish blazes in some of the world’s most embattled institutions.

McEwan’s most famed achievement to date has been his transformation of the Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS), which the bank’s chairman called “one of the biggest UK corporate turnarounds in history”. When McEwan took up the role of CEO in 2013, the lender was floundering in the wake of a £45.5bn ($56bn) bailout that left the UK Government with an 80 percent stake. Just five years later, RBS has become a profitable enterprise once again and has recommenced dividend payments to shareholders – all on McEwan’s watch.

He now faces a similar challenge, this time closer to home: in July, it was announced that McEwan would replace Philip Chronican as CEO of National Australia Bank (NAB). The bank has seen its fair share of regulatory trouble in recent months, having been singled out as a perpetrator of bad banking practices in a report by the Royal Commission. But with his impressive arsenal of crisis-management experience, McEwan is one of few who can put NAB back on solid ground, making him the clear favourite for the top job.

Money over mind
McEwan has always been good with money. “If I put money on a credit card, I pay it off in the month,” he told The Scotsman in an interview in 2017. “I’m a bank’s worst nightmare.” He credits his parents with instilling this fiscal responsibility in him: when he was growing up in New Zealand, his mother would put away every spare penny of her shop assistant salary. His father, meanwhile, was not one to give handouts. “I remember I borrowed some money off my dad and him saying, ‘I want it back’,” McEwan told The Scotsman.

With his impressive arsenal of crisis management experience, Ross McEwan is one of few who can put NAB back on solid ground

Despite his financial prudence, he wasn’t particularly academic, and has described his degree from New Zealand’s Massey University as being “made up of C passes”. He even failed a key accountancy module twice and has since claimed he is “more comfortable with people than figures”. It’s this quality, combined with his penchant for wide-ranging strategic thinking, that facilitated his ascendance to the upper echelons of the Australasian insurance sphere. Less than two decades after graduating, he was appointed CEO of AXA New Zealand, having risen through the ranks at National Mutual, which was acquired by the French insurer in 1995. After six years in this role, he took on the same post at First NZ Capital Securities, the Kiwi affiliate of Credit Suisse.

In 2003, McEwan was headhunted for the top role at the New Zealand retail banking services division for the Commonwealth Bank of Australia (CBA). He jumped at the chance to bolster his institutional banking experience, shifting between retail and wealth management before becoming head of retail banking at CBA in 2007. While in the latter position, he got his first taste of the challenges involved in an entire strategic overhaul, when the 2008 financial crisis severely dampened public confidence in the banking sector and CBA was forced to find ways to restore the trust of its customers.

McEwan did this by improving access to the bank by enhancing mobile services, extending branch opening times and making it easier for customers to access loans. “His leadership of retail banking services has led to all-time highs in customer satisfaction, a strong performance for shareholders and a high level of people engagement,” CBA CEO Ian Narev said of McEwan in 2012.

Feeling the pinch
In 2011, McEwan was tipped for the top position at CBA but narrowly lost out to his friend Narev. This placed him in a difficult spot – he had achieved all he could within CBA’s retail division and wanted a new challenge, but did not want to move to a competitor within the Australian banking market out of loyalty and respect for his current employer. “To me, it was: step away from it, go overseas, try some new things,” McEwan told the Australian Financial Review earlier this year. “RBS was one of the businesses I’d discussed with my wife that actually I thought would be quite a challenge at a retail level to have a go at repairing.”

Many in the UK banking industry would have stared open-mouthed had he made that admission at the time. For the previous five years, RBS had been considered the basket case of the sector. Its troubles began in 2007 when the bank led a consortium acquisition of Dutch lender ABN AMRO for £49bn ($60.3bn). The deal, which was the largest bank takeover in history at the time, wiped out RBS’ capital reserves, leaving the bank dangerously exposed to financial shocks. In April 2008, recognising the fragility of its position, RBS raised £12bn ($14.8bn) through a rights issue, but this did little to plug the hole in its finances. Less than six months later, at the peak of the financial crisis, the bank crumbled and had to be bailed out by the taxpayer to the tune of £45.5bn ($56bn).

Following this, RBS’ troubles were far from over. When the bank was rescued, then-CEO Fred Goodwin stepped down but continued to claim a pension worth £703,000 ($865,000) a year, leading to outcry from investors and the public. His remuneration was subsequently reduced, while in 2012 he was stripped of his knighthood, a dishonour usually reserved for those who have committed a criminal offence.

Ross McEwan in numbers:

2013

The year McEwan became CEO of RBS

$56bn

Value of RBS’ bailout

$924.8m

RBS’ profit in 2018

62%

UK Government’s stake in RBS

It was in this context that McEwan joined the lender as the head of retail banking. During his time in the position, RBS’ reputation was further tarnished by two substantial regulatory fines of £50m ($61.5m) and £390m ($479.9m). The first came as a result of a mass IT failure in June 2012, which left customers unable to access their accounts for days, while the second, in February 2013, related to RBS’ role in rigging the LIBOR rate.

Back from the brink
McEwan inherited a mess when he was promoted to CEO in October 2013. His predecessor, Stephen Hester, failed to return the bank to an even keel, reputationally or financially; the government still owned an 80 percent stake and shares sat at £3.60 ($4.43) each, compared with the 2007 high of £21.51 ($26.48). “When he took on the CEO position, the bank was in a very distressed state,” John Cronin, a financial analyst at Goodbody, told World Finance.

McEwan’s recovery plan began with some tried and tested tactics to improve customer accessibility, such as extending branch opening hours and boosting the bank’s digital offering. In a speech in 2014 announcing the bank’s new strategy, he even attributed the bank’s failure to the fact that it had lost sight of who it was supposed to be serving. “It became detached from the customer-focused values that have to be at the heart of any bank,” he told his audience. McEwan also wound down many of RBS’ international and non-core businesses, reducing the lender’s cost base and paving the way for it to become a more agile institution. When he joined in 2013, the bank had operations in 30 countries, but that number had more than halved to just 12 countries by 2018.

This cost cutting paved the way for the bank’s return to profitability, which it achieved in 2018, posting an annual profit of £752m ($924.8m). It also allowed the UK Government to reduce its stake in the lender to 62 percent, meaning the bank could resume making dividend payments to shareholders. Today, RBS is “very profitable, well capitalised, very liquid, has coped very well with stress tests and should be in a position to withstand a very severe macro shock as a result of the changes that [McEwan] made”, Cronin said. “McEwan has done an exceptional job resuscitating the institution.”

The one main area in which he hasn’t succeeded is on the stock market, as RBS’ share price remained extremely low throughout Mc-Ewan’s tenure despite his restructuring efforts. However, according to Cronin: “When you look at the RBS share price today, relative to where it was 10 or 11 years ago, we’re comparing apples and oranges in terms of the wider environment.” Banks have far greater regulatory cost burdens today, their market position is under threat from disruptive fintech firms, and investors are unwilling to purchase bank shares in the way they would have back in 2007. “McEwan has come under criticism on occasion, but I think it’s almost inevitable when you’re firefighting on a daily basis,” Cronin added.

Repeat performance
Having successfully brought RBS back from the brink, McEwan is now looking to perform a similar feat at NAB. Australia’s fourth-largest bank has come under fire following a report by the Royal Commission that saw it accused of engaging in overly aggressive sales practices and charging customers a staggering AUD 100m ($68.3m) in excess fees. In the wake of the scandal, both NAB’s chairman and CEO resigned, leaving the lender to weather the storm rudderless. “There are some things that need repairing,” McEwan told reporters upon his appointment as CEO. “[But] one of the reasons I’m here is I find strength in those sorts of challenges.”

The Kiwi banker certainly has his work cut out for him. The Royal Commission’s report has stoked the flames of public anger, and NAB has borne the brunt of this given its centrality in the wider market scandal. McEwan must also tackle the bank’s corrupt corporate culture and brace himself for a slew of potential fines. On top of that, he will face macroeconomic challenges: Australia’s impressive GDP growth over the past decade has stalled in recent months, making consistent profitability harder to achieve.

It’s not a role for the faint-hearted, but if anyone is up to the job, it’s McEwan. “He’s somebody who has the experience and the gravitas to deal with both the politicians and the regulators,” Cronin said. “He’ll be able to move forward in terms of taking strategic action, changing governance and adjusting the business’ response to the demands of the environment. It’s an ideal fit.”


Curriculum Vitae

Born: 1957 |  Education: Massey University

1996
Ross McEwan took on his first top management role as CEO of AXA’s New Zealand operations, aged just 40 years old. He remained in this role for six years, before taking the same position at First NZ Capital Securities.

2003
McEwan transitioned from insurance to traditional financial services, becoming group executive for retail banking services at the Commonwealth Bank of Australia, where he was later tipped for the CEO role.

2012
The Kiwi banker swapped his homeland for rainier shores when he joined struggling British lender Royal Bank of Scotland as the head of retail banking. He described the move as “quite a challenge”.

2013
Within a year at the bank, McEwan was promoted to the top job at RBS following the resignation of former CEO Stephen Hester. He guided the lender through the next stage of its recovery process.

2014
McEwan hit the headlines when he told The Telegraph that the UK’s fixation on free-if-in-credit banking must come to an end. He called for banks to be more transparent about their pricing on transactions.

2019
Having nursed RBS back to health, McEwan revealed his plans to return to the Southern Hemisphere and give National Australia Bank, which has been accused of overly aggressive sales practices, the same treatment.

Striking a sour note: why the CFA franc’s days as legal tender could be spent

Although filmed just two years ago, the video of pan-African activist Kémi Séba setting fire to a 5,000 CFA franc banknote (worth around $8.43) in front of a cheering crowd in Dakar, Senegal, is already a piece of West African lore. By burning the note, Séba, a French national who was born Stellio Gilles Robert Capo Chichi, ignited a tinderbox of anti-French anger. The stunt – provocative and controversial in equal measure – was an embarrassment for local authorities, who swiftly arrested Séba. It also made him a symbol of the struggle against the CFA franc, a currency used in 14 countries across West and Central Africa.

Anti-CFA demonstrations are not rare in these parts of Africa. In 2015, rallies against the currency were held in Cameroon and Togo, and even in France itself, activists frequently travel to the town of Chamalières to protest the CFA franc in front of the mint where the currency is produced. But it was Séba’s stunt that lent a face to a movement that had been simmering under the surface for many years – if not decades.

As Fanny Pigeaud, a journalist who co-authored the book L’arme Invisible de la Françafrique: Une Histoire du Franc CFA with economist Ndongo Samba Sylla, told World Finance, technology turned Séba’s actions into a piece of history: “Séba’s gesture was symbolic, but it had a significant impact on public opinion, thanks to the media and social networks where it was widely shared. Filmed and photographed, it made more visible the fight against the CFA franc that social movements have recently revived.”

A colonial legacy
Two separate currencies share the CFA acronym: the West African CFA franc, which is in circulation throughout the West African Economic and Monetary Union (WAEMU), and the Central African CFA franc, which can be found across the Central African Economic and Monetary Community. Combined, the currencies are present in Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, the Central African Republic, Chad, the Republic of Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Gabon, Equatorial Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Mali, Niger, Senegal and Togo. As the French Treasury backs both currencies, they have always held the same monetary value.

Radical critics perceive the CFA franc as an odious remnant of the colonial era that encroaches on the sovereignty of African states

The CFA franc’s troubled history is apparent in its name. From 1945 to 1958, the acronym stood for ‘colonies Françaises d’Afrique’, but the wave of decolonisation that swept through Africa in the late 1950s compelled authorities to swap the controversial term ‘colonies’ for ‘communauté’. Eventually, the two monetary zones picked their own versions of the acronym, with West African countries sticking to ‘communauté financière Africaine’ and Central African ones opting for ‘coopération financière en Afrique centrale’. When French President Emmanuel Macron visited the region in 2017, he hinted that a name change would be welcome, expressing France’s determination to let members of the CFA zone decide the future of the currency for themselves.

Since its birth in 1945, the CFA’s status has been intrinsically interwoven with the economic history of the former colonial power. Following the end of the Second World War, the French franc was sharply devalued to reach a fixed exchange rate with the US dollar and meet the criteria outlined in the Bretton Woods Agreement. The devaluation was challenging for a country that had emerged from the war victorious, but in a far more precarious economic state than before. As a result, French authorities found it impossible to continue supporting the country’s African colonies, instead opting to create a new currency tailored to the economic conditions of Françafrique (French-speaking Africa) and sparing it the impacts of devaluation.

But as critics of the currency claim, what appeared to be an act of economic prudence was, in fact, a well-calculated gambit of the French Government to keep control of its African empire. Not all French colonies trod the same path, however: Guinea ditched the currency in 1959, with Mauritania and Madagascar following suit in 1973. Mali also briefly left in 1962, before rejoining in 1984.

Since France officially joined the eurozone in 1999, the CFA has been pegged to the euro. As such, monetary policy, including the crucial task of setting interest rates, is not designed in Paris (never mind Dakar or Abidjan), but in Frankfurt, home of the European Central Bank. For its part, France guarantees the currency’s convertibility to the euro. In return, the French Treasury retains half of the CFA zone’s foreign exchange reserves, while French officials sit on the boards of both CFA central banks.

Pan-African activist Kémi Séba ignited a tinderbox of anti-French anger when he set fire to a 5,000 CFA franc banknote (worth around $8.43) in 2017

The rise of the anti-CFA movement
For many decades, the CFA’s central position in the region’s monetary system continued unquestioned. Those days are gone: radical critics now perceive it as an odious remnant of the colonial era that encroaches on the sovereignty of African states. Dr Ken Opalo, an assistant professor at Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service, told World Finance: “The anti-CFA movement is merely a reflection of a growing sense that the decolonisation settlements in the 1960s were not as good as many imagined them to be, and the CFA remains to be a clear expression of that imbalance.”

Dr Cheikh Ahmed Bamba Diagne, Director of the Laboratory for Economic and Monetary Research at the Cheikh Anta Diop University, believes it is a generational, rather than an economic, gap in the world’s youngest continent that explains the rise of the movement: “After 75 years, we can say that this currency has had its day and the continent’s young people want a break with France. That makes sense politically and ideologically, but an exit requires serious preparation to avoid macroeconomic destabilisation. Those opposing the CFA franc do not have technical arguments. [Instead,] they often use the terms ‘sovereignty’ and ‘freedom’ – and rightly so.”

Critics cite a sharp devaluation in 1994 – enforced by the French Government of Édouard Balladur in spite of opposition from a number of African leaders – as an example of the system’s flaws. Although the devaluation was followed by an economic growth spurt, it also sparked social turmoil, reducing purchasing power and increasing public debt. Opponents claim the status quo benefits France rather than French Africa: by keeping half of the CFA’s currency reserves, France finances part of its own debt.

Diagne, however, believes this amount is negligible: “The foreign exchange reserves of WAEMU represent less than 0.18 percent of France’s GDP, so how can they finance France’s debt?” The CFA monetary system also favours French companies operating in the region, with the likes of Castel, Bouygues, Bolloré, Total, Orange and Alcatel being able to avoid exchange rate risks and save on hedging and transaction costs.

While the CFA franc has avoided hyperinflationary episodes, it has deprived countries of learning how to manage a currency

A particularly contentious issue is the currency’s convertibility to the euro, which, according to opponents of the CFA, encourages capital flight. Martial Ze Belinga, an economist and the co-author of an influential book on the currency, told World Finance: “Free movement of capital, which was logical when African countries belonged to the French Empire and constituted a single institutional space, is now the source of tax evasion and outflow of capital that is not favourable for savings.”

The irony, according to Pigeaud and Sylla, is that the French guarantee of convertibility to the euro is practically non-existent – in the French budget for 2018, the amount allocated to the guarantee was zero. “If the French Government does not allocate any funds to honour its pledge to guarantee convertibility, it is because it relies on solidarity between African states through the centralisation of their foreign exchange reserves,” the pair noted in their book. “The currencies of major exporting countries like Côte d’Ivoire and Cameroon make it possible to offset the low levels of countries with fewer resources, such as [the] Central African Republic and Togo.”

From a macroeconomic perspective, critics claim the currency hinders industrialisation, as growth-driven policies are subordinated to the goal of monetary stability. The mandate of the two CFA central banks focuses on defending the fixed parity, effectively limiting the amount of financial credit accessible to African companies. Proponents counter that low levels of industrial development should be attributed to a lack of infrastructure and low productivity, rather than the currency itself.

Dr Abdourahmane Sarr, a Senegalese economist who previously served as the IMF’s macroeconomic advisor to the WAEMU central bank, told World Finance: “To the extent that the exchange rate may have been overvalued, at times it may have helped constrain industrialisation and subsidise imports to the detriment of exports. That was certainly the case before the devaluation of 1994.”

Déjà vu
For many, the currency’s biggest flaw is that it’s overpriced – its peg to the euro makes exports from the largely agricultural economies of the CFA zone more expensive than they should be. This arrangement, Pigeaud and Sylla argue, offers the African middle and upper classes valuable purchasing power, allowing them to buy foreign products that could have been manufactured locally. What’s more, Sylla told World Finance that France adopts a somewhat hypocritical stance when it comes to the eurozone: “French authorities are the most vocal critics of the euro’s overvaluation over the last 20 years. Yet, they always tell African governments that the peg to the euro is good for their economies and provides them ‘stability’.”

Supporters of the CFA claim that the peg – coupled with guaranteed convertibility – strengthens the zone’s attractiveness to foreign investors. According to Sylla, though, » this view is not supported by the data, with the UN Conference on Trade and Development’s (UNCTAD’s) World Investment Report 2019 showing that Ghana received a greater amount of foreign direct investment (FDI) between 2013 and 2017 than all of the WAEMU countries combined (see Fig 1). IMF data also shows that a fixed exchange rate is not necessarily a boon for sub-Saharan African countries: since 2000, those operating with fixed exchange rates experienced lower levels of economic growth than those with a floating currency.

The recent European debt crisis has added fuel to the fire, leading those who oppose the CFA system to question how a currency deemed overvalued for Southern European economies could meet the needs of sub-Saharan ones. “Debates around the euro have played a role, especially in the way critiques of the CFA are received in France, as the currency’s post-1994 architecture mimics the governance framework of the euro,” Belinga said. “Critics of the euro have thus become more sensitive to the issue of [the] CFA franc.”

One such critic is Luigi Di Maio, Italy’s deputy prime minister and leader of the ruling Five Star Movement, who has labelled the currency as a form of exploitation that encourages young Africans to migrate. “France is one of those countries that, by printing money for 14 states, prevents development and contributes to the departure of refugees,” Di Maio, whose party has toyed with the idea of holding a referendum on the euro, said in January.

France’s weak growth over the past decade has also raised questions over its role in African affairs. Douglas Yates, an expert in African politics who teaches at the American Graduate School in Paris, told World Finance: “The impression of France’s continual strength – that is, its ability to dominate through the CFA – [is] a paradox of sorts, [with] France being both too strong and too weak in its former African colonies.”

Serving the elite
Bar some exceptions – such as President of Chad Idriss Déby, who has called for a reform of the CFA zone – local elites are typically in favour of maintaining the status quo. As Pigeaud explained to World Finance: “African elites, especially those in power or aspiring to be in power, do not dare to publicly criticise the CFA franc because they are afraid of retaliation from France. Some of them also benefit from the CFA system thanks to the free transfer of capital, as they can freely invest their assets in Europe.”

Although no credible polls have been conducted on the issue, urban middle classes are thought to be in favour of the currency as it ensures price stability – inflation in the CFA zone rarely surpasses three percent, which is significantly lower than the average of nine percent recorded in the rest of sub-Saharan Africa. CFA countries have also dodged the hyperinflation crises that frequently hit countries like Zimbabwe, whose annual inflation rate stood at 175 percent in June.

“The benefit of the CFA franc for member countries is monetary discipline,” Sarr said. “It helps avoid [the] monetary financing of fiscal deficits [that] would most likely find their way [into] current account deficits.” But for those who reject the current monetary system, the price for stability is too high to pay. Belinga told World Finance that while the CFA franc has avoided hyperinflationary episodes, it has also deprived countries of learning how to manage a currency, including the use of hedging strategies and the anticipation of crises. For Belinga, those who oppose change by invoking the risk of hyperinflation suffer from a “lack of confidence in local [African] management and the irrational fear of assuming sovereignty”.

Eco worrier
If supporters and detractors of the CFA have one thing in common, it’s a shared belief that some kind of reform is necessary. Radicals suggest the use of a new currency that is purely African and unshackled from the CFA franc’s controversial past is the way forward. In fact, many have pinned their hopes on the ‘eco’, a proposed currency that the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) hopes to launch in 2020. Leaders from ECOWAS nations – which include eight CFA countries – met in the Nigerian capital in July to discuss details of the plan, notably the currency’s exchange rate. The currency is expected to boost trade in West Africa by cutting transaction costs and creating economies of scale for exporters and foreign investors. According to BNP Paribas’ CFA Franc: A New Stress Test report, intra-zone trade within the WAEMU currently lingers around 10 percent of total trade flows.

The project is awash with difficulties, though, and has been postponed several times as a result. Like the eurozone, the ‘eco zone’ will include economies with varying degrees of development, making convergence a distant goal. Some economists have also raised questions over the extent to which a common currency would boost trade. As Opalo told World Finance, few countries are ready for such a radical change: “It is highly probable that, come next year, the currency launch will be postponed again. The region’s economies are still not able to support a common currency. Almost none of the countries will be able to meet the fiscal guidelines required.”

For smaller countries, the biggest worry is that Nigeria, which dwarfs all other economies in the region, will dominate monetary policy. In 2018, Nigeria’s GDP was more than three times that of all WAEMU countries combined (see Fig 2). “These fears are warranted,” Diagne said, pointing to the current imbalance within the West African CFA zone that sees Côte d’Ivoire practically call the shots. “The zone’s monetary policy is more in line with the needs of [Côte d’Ivoire] than the rest of the WAEMU members. So what do you think will happen with an ECOWAS currency where Nigeria represents 74.1 percent [of the zone’s GDP] and the remaining 14 countries 25.9 percent?”

Opponents of the CFA franc dismiss these fears as scaremongering. As Belinga told World Finance: “Nigeria is the natural leading country of this region. There is no reason to be alarmed. An irrational fear has been inculcated in the elites of French-speaking Africa against Nigeria and English-speaking Africans. It is time to free ourselves from these colonial complexes.”

Opalo, meanwhile, believes the advent of the eco may be a tipping point in the undeclared war between France and Nigeria for regional hegemony: “If the eco is launched – a big ‘if’ – it will signal a symbolic break with French domination of West Africa. France has always fought Nigeria for supremacy in the region, and the eco would be a significant coup for Nigeria.”

One continent, one currency
The prospect of a purely African common currency has sparked hopes that the whole continent could one day follow in the footsteps of the eurozone and share the same legal tender. One project that charters a path towards such a future is the proposed African Monetary Union, which, under the auspices of the African Union, mandates the establishment of a central bank by 2020, followed by the introduction of a pan-African currency. Critics, though, have continually questioned the feasibility of such a monetary union.

With the continent comprising 54 countries – ranging from the populous Nigeria to the tiny Lesotho; the economic powerhouse of South Africa to the laggard Niger – sceptics fear hopes of African unification are unrealistic. Belinga, however, believes that all hope is not lost and integration is possible, principally because Africans want it: “Paradoxically, the most powerful argument for integration does not lie in the economy, nor politics, but in the strong belief of people in pan-Africanism, which contrasts with the scepticism that always surrounds the idea of a common Europe or a single European currency.”

Deutsche Bank’s fall from grace: how one of the world’s largest lenders got into hot water

On July 8, 2019, thousands of Deutsche Bank employees across the globe arrived at their offices, unaware that they would be leaving again, jobless, just a few hours later. In Tokyo, entire teams of equity traders were dismissed on the spot, while some London staff were reportedly told they had until 11am to leave the bank’s Great Winchester Street offices before their access cards stopped working.

The job cuts, which totalled 18,000, or around 20 percent of Deutsche Bank’s workforce, were the flagship element of a restructuring plan designed to save the ailing German lender. Wall Street’s top market observers have described the initiative as ambitious and radical, but it remains to be seen whether it will be enough to save the bank, which has come under intense scrutiny for dubious business practices in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis.

Chequered past
Deutsche Bank was founded in 1870 to promote Germany’s standing within the global trade market. It was the country’s first foray into international banking; prior to its establishment, German companies had to rely on British and French lenders to do business overseas, meaning they were often subject to unfavourable terms. Deutsche Bank opened its first branch in Bremen in 1871 but expanded rapidly into Asia and Europe, opening a Shanghai branch in 1872 and a London outpost the following year.

Its early growth was stalled in 1914 by the commencement of the First World War, in which the lender lost the majority of its foreign assets. It recovered quickly by pursuing a series of significant mergers, one of which, with German lender Disconto-Gesellschaft, allowed it to avoid the worst of the 1929 crash. Deutsche Bank’s role in the Second World War, however, is the source of much controversy: according to its own historians, the bank was involved in 363 confiscations of Jewish-owned businesses between 1933, when Adolf Hitler came to power, and 1938. It also loaned funds to the German Government to allow it to build the Auschwitz concentration camp, according to The New York Times.

The bank’s connection with Trump has come under intense scrutiny since his election, initially due to the investigation led by Robert Mueller into Trump’s relationship with Russia

At the end of the war, Deutsche Bank did not slink off quietly into the shadows as many businesses that had been involved with the Nazi Party did. Rather, “it [became] a leading force for the reconstruction, redevelopment and reunification of Europe”, The New York TimesDavid Enrich noted. After several decades, however, the bank changed tack and began to go after the sort of riches and prowess that had, until this point, been concentrated on Wall Street. Its ploy bore fruit in the late 1990s when its $10.1bn acquisition of US investment bank Bankers Trust made it the fourth-largest financial management firm in the world. Buoyed by this success, in 2001, the German lender debuted on the New York Stock Exchange, positioning itself to take advantage of the astronomical rise of the US stock market in the mid-2000s.

Scandal upon scandal
In the aftermath of the 2008 crash, however, Deutsche Bank’s success began to unravel. It had been one of the largest purveyors of junk bonds, selling about $32bn worth of collateralised debt between 2004 and 2008, but its traders were also betting against that market in order to line their own pockets. Greg Lippmann, Deutsche’s former head of asset-backed securities trading, even referred to some bonds as “crap” and “pigs” in emails to colleagues, all the while promoting them to investors as A-grade.

The implication of this profiteering came home to roost in January 2014, when the bank was forced to pay a $1.93bn settlement to the US Federal Housing Finance Agency for its sale of subprime-mortgage-backed securities to now-defunct government agencies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The sum broke the back of its profit margins; that quarter, it reported a $1.6bn pre-tax loss, heralding a loss-making era for the lender.

Since that time, the losses and lawsuits have come thick and fast. In April 2015, the bank paid a combined $2.5bn in fines to US and UK regulators for its role in the LIBOR-fixing scandal. Just six months later, it was forced to pay an additional $258m to regulators in New York after it was caught trading with Myanmar, Libya, Sudan, Iran and Syria, all of which were subject to US sanctions at the time. These two fines, combined with challenging market conditions, led the bank to post a €6.7bn ($7.39bn) net loss for 2015. Two years later, it paid a further $425m to the New York regulator to settle claims that it had laundered $10bn in Russian funds.

Questions have also been raised over Deutsche Bank’s relationship with US President Donald Trump and disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein. The bank’s relationship with Trump dates back to the 1990s when it was attempting to get a foot in the door on Wall Street; having a high-profile property mogul like Trump on the bank’s books allowed it to chase after bigger and better clients. “Serving Donald Trump as a client was one way that Deutsche elbowed its way onto the world stage,” said Russ Mould, Investment Director at AJ Bell. The bank financed almost three decades’ worth of Trump’s deals and continued to lend to him despite multiple loan defaults until as late as 2016.

The bank’s connection with Trump has come under intense scrutiny since his election, initially due to the investigation led by Robert Mueller into Trump’s relationship with Russia, and latterly in relation to Trump’s tax returns, which the lender has so far refused to release despite being subject to a congressional subpoena. With regards to Epstein, Deutsche reportedly managed his finances long after his 2008 conviction for soliciting underage sex and only terminated its association with him in May this year, according to The Boston Globe.

Divisive vision
It was in the midst of this furore that, in April 2018, Deutsche Bank veteran Christian Sewing took up the role of CEO. In his typical pragmatic fashion, Sewing had set out a comprehensive cost-cutting plan in less than a month, aiming to trim down the bank’s operations and restore it to profitability. In a memo at the end of his first month in the job, he told staff: “It is our imperative to take tough decisions… We have to regain our credibility.”

July’s job cuts are the toughest measure to be introduced by Sewing yet, and signal to the market that he is prepared to ruffle feathers internally to achieve wider organisational goals. In a conference call to the media on the morning of the redundancies, the CEO highlighted the bank’s main errors as over-expansion, ill-thought-out capital allocation to failing corners of the business, and ignorance with regard to costs. His restructuring plan aims to tackle all of those aspects by trimming staff costs, spinning off underperforming divisions into a €50bn ($55.3bn) bad bank, and scaling back the organisation’s global network.

It certainly impressed Wall Street’s finest. JPMorgan Chase wrote in a memo: “[Deutsche Bank’s] restructuring, in our view, is bold and for the first time not half-baked but a real strategic shift giving up its Tier 1 [investment bank] ambitions. [Deutsche Bank] is rightsizing to where it came from originally.” UBS, meanwhile, commented that the plan shows a real willingness to change, writing in a note: “Progress over the coming quarters could then further increase the market confidence in the plan.”

However, the plan’s success is by no means guaranteed. Shares have fallen since the redundancies were announced as the implications of the high-risk, multi-year strategy began to sink in for investors. At the time of printing, Deutsche Bank’s shares were hovering around €7.64 ($8.48), a dramatic decline from the €32 ($35.31) highs seen in 2015 and a long way off the lender’s pre-crisis peak of €112 ($123.60).

But the greatest threat to progress is the money-laundering allegations that are currently swirling around the lender. These first emerged in November last year in connection with the Danske Bank scandal; the same month, Deutsche’s Frankfurt offices were raided as police searched for documents connecting the two lenders. The investigation is ongoing.

“The money-laundering accusations are a serious matter from a reputational, operational and financial point of view,” Mould told World Finance. “Regulators are clamping down hard and, after fines for sanctions busting, misselling toxic mortgage-backed securities, rigging LIBOR and money laundering over the past decade, investors will not be pleased if Deutsche has to pay further hefty penalties.”

Sewing is not ignorant of this possibility. In that regard, July’s restructuring is a shrewd move, as slimming the organisation will limit the damage if the money-laundering investigation does not go the bank’s way. It has also provided the opportunity to rid the bank of senior figures whose unscrupulous, profit-hungry attitude was instrumental in its fall from grace.