2018年國際財富管理中心排名報告（英文版）

1、AcknowledgementsDeloitte would like to thank all the experts and executives interviewed for their invaluable contributions to this study.,International wealth management centres (IWMC) are defined in this report as cou

2、ntries or jurisdictions specialising in and attracting a large number of international private clients. A key feature of this definition is the provision of a significant scale of private banking/wealth management serv

3、ices to clients with foreign domiciles. Consequently, a large proportion of client assets in wealth management centres are privately owned cross-border assets representing the international market volume, which are the

4、focal point of this report.,,,,,,IWMC highlighted (in alphabetical order):BahrainHong KongLuxembourg,,,Panama &,,,Singapore,,,Switzerland,,,UAE,,,,,,,,,,,,,UK,,US,the Caribbean,Asset classes include bank account

5、s (checking and saving accounts), debt and equity securities (incl. shares of funds), derivatives and partially assets held in fiduciary structures such as companies and trusts. This is not limited to millionaire househ

6、olds, but includesall households. Assets held via funds, life insurers and pensions are excluded. Non-banking assets such as business equity, primary residences and art are excluded as well.International Market Volum

7、e (IMV) is defined as assets managed or administered in a location separate from the asset owner’s domicile. This report focuses on IMV from a booking perspective (where are assets booked?) as opposed to an origination

8、perspective (what is the domicile of the asset owner?).,Scope of the research,ForewordExecutive summaryCompetitiveness ranking 4 Asset size rankingPerformance rankingConclusion and outlook 7 Appendix8 Contacts an

9、d authors,4571220313241,Contents,4,The international wealth management industry still faces several challenges. In addition to the never-ending regulatory pressures, the emergence of private clients from Generati

10、on Y and Generation Z is changing the nature of demand. Moreover, technology-driven innovation cycles have become even shorter, and digitally-enabled business models are becoming the ’new normal’. The transformation t

11、aking place is costly, and not all players in the industry will have the financial means to pay for it. Consequently, new forms of cooperation models will appear and consolidation will continue in the industry. However

12、, the economy in most of the top 25 private banking markets globally has been prospering and financial markets have been enjoying continuing growth since our last report in 2015.Given the international nature of this

13、 business, there is intense rivalry between the largest private wealth management centres in serving international clients.The performance of these centres in terms of their international business can be measured by

14、value, based on quantitative factors such as Assets under Management and Administration (AMA), net new assets (NNA) or profitability, and these in turn depend on other ’success factors’ such as infrastructure, capital

15、market and digital maturity.This third edition of our ranking report focuses on three main questions:How has the competitiveness of each wealth management centre changed since 2013?How have the centres performed s

16、ince 2010 in terms of market volume from international clients and growth?What has been the performance ranking of selected centres since 2013 interms of profitability and efficiency?We hope that this report provid

17、es you with some interesting and useful insights into this industry sector.,Dr. Daniel KoblerPartner, Lead AuthorLeader Private Banking & Wealth Management Industry Switzerland,Sven ProbstPartnerLeader Financia

18、l Services Industry Switzerland,1Foreword,5,The Deloitte International Wealth Management Centre Ranking 2018| Executive summary,Shifting competitive factorsThere have been shifts in the relative importance of the fact

19、ors underlying IWMC competitiveness. ’Tax and regulation’ have become less important, and ’provider capability’ more so.Tight raceThe competitiveness rankings of the three leading centres are unchanged from 2013: Swi

20、tzerland, followed by Singapore and Hong Kong. It is a tight race, however.Switzerland leading, Singapore and Hong Kong following closely behindSwitzerland scores well for competitiveness across the board, with ’busi

21、ness environment’ the slight exception, where it comes in just above average.Singapore and Hong Kong also rank well for competitiveness, but with slight weaknesses in ’provider capability’ and also, in the case of Hon

22、g Kong, in ’stability’.Business environment’ is a big advantage for the US and the UK, both are weaker in ’stability’.,2.1Overall findingsNew challengesThe business environment for international wealth management ce

23、ntres (IWMC) has become more challenging. The focus for competitiveness has shifted more towards provider capability and digital maturity. Between 2010 and 2017, there has been a fall in international market volume (IM

24、V) as well as net new assets (NNA) in the leading centres. Cost competitiveness remains an ongoing challenge.Leading centres: Switzerland still on top, others closely behindSwitzerland is still the leading centre in

25、terms of competitiveness, size and performance. However, Switzerland is losing ground in IMV, while others are catching up. Hong Kong has the highest growth rate in IMV, the US is following behind.The leading centres

26、are mostly rising to the cost challenge. Digital capabilities have improved, and the most competitive centres are setting standards for provider capability.Most challenged centre: Panama and the CaribbeanSwitzerland

27、has lost some IMV, but it remains the biggest centre. The overall negative IMV globally is attributable mainly to Panama and the Caribbean.There is a clear divide between the best and the rest. The lowest ranked of the

28、 nine centres, especially Panama and the Caribbean, are worst by almost every measure. Hong Kong is something of an exception: it is the leader for NNA, its IMV is rising, and it is among the best for competitiveness;

29、however, it has an increasing cost income ratio, so growth is coming at a price.,,,,,2Executive summary,2.2 CompetitivenessCompetitiveness ranking,1,.,,,2,.,,,3,.,,4,.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,5,.,,,6,.,,7.,,,8,.,,,9,.,,,6,The

30、Deloitte International Wealth Management Centre Ranking 2018 | Executive summary,1,.,,,2,.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,3,.,,4,.,,5,.,,,6,.,,,7.,,,8,.,,,9,.,,,Significant shiftsThe business environment for IWMC has become more challeng

31、ing, leading to significant shifts among the ranking by size. Between 2010 and 2017, there has been a fall in IMV as well as NNA in the leading nine centres.Switzerland remains the largest centre, closely followed by

32、 the UK; some centres are falling behindSwitzerland remains the largest IWMC (with US $1.84 tn in IMV), but the UK follows closely (with US $1.79 tn). Other centres such as Panama and the Caribbean, Bahrain, and the Un

33、ited Arab Emirates are falling behind.US saw largest absolute gain, Hong Kong largest relative oneThe US saw the largest absolute gain since 2010 (US $426 bn in IMV, a 41 % increase), and Hong Kong the largest growth

34、 rate (+122 %).In terms of net new assets, the biggest ’winner’ since 2010 has been Hong Kong (US $410 bn), the biggest loser Panama and the Caribbean (a fall of US $1,241 bn).,1,.,,,2,.,,,3,.,,,4,.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,5,.,,6

35、,.,,Increasing competition, price sensitivityIncreasing competition has put pressure on revenue margins, especially in the US and the UK. Enhanced transparency and comparability have led to increased price sensitivity

36、and triggered a drop in fee levels. Some market players have been more successful (e.g. in Switzerland and Singapore) and some less so (the UK and Luxembourg) in counteracting this.Costs stabilisingCost levels of pr

37、ivate banks in mature centres have stabilised, with only Hong Kong experiencing higher cost margins. Market consolidation has helped, enabling economies of scale to be achieved. Cost reductions remain a strategic objec

38、tive, however.Cost income ratio improving in Switzerland, Singapore, the UK, and the USWealth management providers better managed to stabilise their performance and profitability in the recent past, with cost income

39、ratio down in the US, UK, Switzerland and Singapore (but rising in Hong Kong and Luxembourg).Nevertheless, this might be deceptive as client behaviour and expectations have changed. To succeed in the future, private b

40、anks should shift their strategic focus towards re-thinking and innovating their business model.,2.3 SizeSize ranking,,,2.4 PerformancePerformance ranking,,,7,The Deloitte International Wealth Management Centre Ranki

41、ng 2018 | Competitiveness ranking,3.1Multi-dimensional approach to measuring competitivenessDeloitte uses a multi-dimensional approach to measuring competitiveness. It consists of four broad success drivers (or areas

42、), comprising 14 ’success factors’, which in turn are derived from 41 ’success indicators’ (see Figure 1).,Note: Several success factors are interconnected. In particular, human capital (B1) and wealth management servic

43、e quality (B2) are linked, since service quality will be hard to maintain without talent. The efficiency of wealth management institutes (B3) and digital maturity (B4) are likewise linked since digitalisation is a major

44、 route to improving efficiency. All three forms of stability (C1, C2, C3) also depend on each other: effective, non-corrupt governments and regulatory institutions are more likely to produce a stable monetary and finan

45、cial environment.,3Competitiveness ranking,A1 – InfrastructureQuality of overall infrastructureAirport transportation infrastructureICT infrastructure,A2 – Attractiveness as a travel destinationTourism service inf

46、rastructureNatural resourcesCultural resources,A3 – Capital marketSpot foreign exchange turnover,Private bond market capitalisationPublic bond market capitalisationFinancial market sophisticationCapital account lib

47、eralisationAccess to international financial markets,A4 – Fintech hub,B1 – Human capitalLabour market efficiencyEducational system quality,B2 – Wealth managementservice qualityWealth management service quality,B3

48、– Efficiency of wealthmanagement institutesCost income ratioRevenue margin,Stock market capitalisation to GDPB4 – Digital maturity,Peer review innovativetechnologiesAssessment of digital maturity,C1 – Monetary stab

49、ilityChange in real effective exchange rateNet international investment position/GDPCurrent account balance to GDPInflation,C2 – Financial system stabilitySoundness of banksManageability of public debtBank regul

50、atory capital to risk-weighted assets?C3 – Political stabilityGovernment effectiveness riskSecurity riskCorruption,D1 – TaxTaxation of wealth management institutionsTaxation of clientsTax policy risk for cooper

51、ation,D2 – RegulationEffectiveness of law-making bodiesFairness of judicial processFinancial freedomRegulation of securities exchangesBurden of government regulation,D3 – Client capital rights protectionProperty

52、 right indexData privacy protection (bank secrecy),,,,,Figure 1. International wealth management centre value mapWealth management centre competitiveness,,,,A –Business environment,B – Provider capability,C – Stabili

53、ty,D – Tax and regulation,,,,,,,,,,,Source: Deloitte analysis,,,,,KeySuccess drivers/areaSuccess factorsA1–A4, B1–B4, C1–C3, D1–D3? = Success indicatorsNew factor / indicator,,,,,,,,,,,,,8,The Deloitte Internation

54、al Wealth Management Centre Ranking 2018 | Competitiveness ranking,3.2Tax and regulation are less important than in 2013, and provider capability isbecoming more importantAll ’success factors’ are weighted according

55、to their importance for competitiveness.,Figure 2. Weightings of success drivers and success factors Changes from 2013 are shown with arrows and in brackets,There has been a substantial shift in weightings between 2013

56、and 2018, reflecting changing conditions in the wealth management market, as derived from interviews with leading wealth management experts.The biggest reduction in importance has been in the ’success driver’ tax and

57、 regulation: both thetax and regulation success factors were reduced by three percentage points.With increasing regulatory alignment between leading wealth management centres, the scope for regulatory arbitrage is re

58、duced, and regulation is now less of a distinguishing factor between centres.With taxation, tax treaties with the countries of client residence are now more important for clients than taxation in the wealth managemen

59、t centre itself.The third success factor in the ’Tax and regulation’ area, client capital rights protection, was reduced by only one percentage point, but there have been changes in the underlying ’success factors’.

60、Bank secrecy in the traditional sense no longer plays a major role, whereas data privacy and responsible handling of client data are more important.The overall weighting for stability has stayed the same, but with shi

61、fts in the underlying success factors. Political stability in particular has grown in importance while monetary stability has declined.,,,,,,,,,,,A – Business environment,11 % p (1.00 %),A2 – Attractiveness as a travel

62、 destination,2.00 % q (0.50 %),A3 – Capital market,4.50 % q (0.50 %),A4 – Fintech hub (new),2.00 % p(2.00 %),B – Provider capability,36 % p (6.00 %),B1 – Human capital,9.00 % p (0.25 %),B2 – Wealth management service qua

63、lity,12.00 % q (0.50 %),9,The Deloitte International Wealth Management Centre Ranking 2018 | Competitiveness ranking,Service quality is now one of the two most important success factors (together with regulation). As a

64、result, the tools to succeed in the increasingly competitive wealth management marketplace are now more in the hands of the providers themselves. Success is dependent less on regulation and more on the quality of the p

65、roviders themselves.,3.3 Switzerland remains on top, but the competition is close behindSwitzerland remains in first place for competitiveness among wealth management centres.Singapore and Hong Kong follow closely be

66、hind.Switzerland scores well across the board for all the competitiveness success factors, but with business environment a slight exception, where it scores just above the average.Singapore and Hong Kong also perfor

67、m well, with slight weaknesses in provider capability, and also in the case of Hong Kong in stability.’Business environment’ is the biggest advantage of the US and the UK, both are weaker in stability.Differences in

68、 scores in the middle of the table in Figure 3 are very small. The scores of the UAE, USand Luxembourg differ only marginally, so that they can be seen as being basically on the same level.,Figure 3. Overall competitive

69、ness rankings,,The scores are derived by normalising all underlying data between 0 and 100, with 0 points for the worst performing and 100 points for the best performing country, with all others in between. The sample i

70、ncludes 55 countries in total.The score in each success area (A/B/C/D) is the weighted average of all the success factors in that area.The overall score of the ranking is the weighted average of all four success factor