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 countries or jurisdictions specialising in and attracting a large number of internati
2、onal private clients. A key feature of this definition is the provision of a significant scale of private banking/wealth management services to clients with foreign domiciles. Consequently, a large proportion of client assets in wealth management centres are privately owned cross-border assets repre
3、senting the international market volume, which are the focal point of this report.IWMC highlighted (in alphabetical order):Bahrain Hong Kong Luxembourg Panama however, it has an increasing cost income ratio, so growth is coming at a price.2 Executive summary2.2 CompetitivenessCompetitiveness ranking
4、1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.6 The Deloitte International Wealth Management Centre Ranking 2018 | Executive summary1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.Significant shiftsThe business environment for IWMC has become more challenging, leading to significant shifts among the ranking by size. Between 2010 and 2017, t
5、here has been a fall in IMV as well as NNA in the leading nine centres.Switzerland remains the largest centre, closely followed by 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
6、as Panama and the Caribbean, Bahrain, and the United Arab Emirates are falling behind.US saw largest absolute gain, Hong Kong largest relative one The US saw the largest absolute gain since 2010 (US $426 bn in IMV, a 41 % increase), and Hong Kong the largest growth rate (+122 %). In terms of net new
7、 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.Increasing competition, price sensitivityIncreasing competition has put pressure on revenue margins, especially in the US and the UK. Enhanced
8、transparency and comparability have led to increased price sensitivity 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 private banks in
9、 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 objective, however.Cost income ratio improving in Switzerland, Singapore, the UK, and the US Wealth m
10、anagement providers better managed to stabilise their performance and profitability in the recent past, with cost income 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 chang
11、ed. To succeed in the future, private banks should shift their strategic focus towards re-thinking and innovating their business model.2.3 SizeSize ranking2.4 PerformancePerformance ranking7The Deloitte International Wealth Management Centre Ranking 2018 | Competitiveness ranking3.1 Multi-dimensiona
12、l approach to measuring competitivenessDeloitte uses a multi-dimensional approach to measuring competitiveness. It consists of four broad success drivers (or areas), comprising 14 success factors, which in turn are derived from 41 success indicators (see Figure 1).Note: Several success factors are i
13、nterconnected. In particular, human capital (B1) and wealth management service 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 rou
14、te 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 financial environment.3 Competitiveness rankingA1 Infrastructure Quality of overall infrast
15、ructure Airport transportation infrastructure ICT infrastructureA2 Attractiveness as a travel destination Tourism service infrastructure Natural resources Cultural resourcesA3 Capital market Spot foreign exchange turnover Private bond market capitalisation Public bond market capitalisation Financial
16、 market sophistication Capital account liberalisation Access to international financial marketsA4 Fintech hubB1 Human capital Labour market efficiency Educational system qualityB2 Wealth managementservice quality Wealth management service qualityB3 Efficiency of wealthmanagement institutes Cost inco
17、me ratio Revenue margin Stock market capitalisation to GDP B4 Digital maturity Peer review innovativetechnologies Assessment of digital maturityC1 Monetary stability Change in real effective exchange rate Net international investment position/GDP Current account balance to GDP InflationC2 Financial
18、system stability Soundness of banks Manageability of public debt Bank regulatory capital to risk-weighted assetsC3 Political stability Government effectiveness risk Security risk CorruptionD1 Tax Taxation of wealth management institutions Taxation of clients Tax policy risk for cooperationD2 Regulat
19、ion Effectiveness of law-making bodies Fairness of judicial process Financial freedom Regulation of securities exchanges Burden of government regulationD3 Client capital rights protection Property right index Data privacy protection (bank secrecy)Figure 1. International wealth management centre valu
20、e mapWealth management centre competitivenessA Business environmentB Provider capabilityC StabilityD Tax and regulationSource: Deloitte analysisKeySuccess drivers/areaSuccess factorsA1A4, B1B4, C1C3, D1D3 = Success indicatorsNew factor / indicator8 The Deloitte International Wealth Management Centre
21、 Ranking 2018 | Competitiveness ranking3.2 Tax and regulation are less important than in 2013, and provider capability isbecoming more importantAll success factors are weighted according to their importance for competitiveness.Figure 2. Weightings of success drivers and success factors Changes from
22、2013 are shown with arrows and in bracketsThere has been a substantial shift in weightings between 2013 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 suc
23、cess driver tax and 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 reduced, and regulation is now less of a distinguishing factor bet
24、ween centres. With taxation, tax treaties with the countries of client residence are now more important for clients than taxation in the wealth management centre itself. The third success factor in the Tax and regulation area, client capital rights protection, was reduced by only one percentage poin
25、t, but there have been changes in the underlying success factors. 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 shifts in the under
26、lying success factors. Political stability in particular has grown in importance while monetary stability has declined.A Business environment 11 % p (1.00 %)Success drivers/areas Weight Success factors WeightA1 Infrastructure 2.50 % uA2 Attractiveness as a travel destination 2.00 % q (0.50 %)A3 Capi
27、tal 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 quality 12.00 % q (0.50 %)B3 Efficiency of wealth management service provider 8.50 % q (0.25 %)B4 Digital maturity (new) 6.50 % p (6.50
28、 %)C1 Monetary stability 8.00 % q (1.50 %)C Stability 25 % u C2 Financial system stability 6.50 % p (0.50 %)C3 Political stability 10.50 % p (1.00 %)D1 Tax 7.00 % q(3.00 %)D Tax and regulation 28 % q (7.00 %) D2 Regulation 12.00 % q(3.00 %)D3 Client capital rights protection 9.00 % q (1.00 %)Sum 100
29、 % 100.00 %9The 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 result, the tools to succeed in the increasingly competitive wealth management marketplace are
30、now more in the hands of the providers themselves. Success is dependent less on regulation and more on the quality of the providers themselves.3.3 Switzerland remains on top, but the competition is close behind Switzerland remains in first place for competitiveness among wealth management centres. S
31、ingapore and Hong Kong follow closely behind. 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 perform well, with slight weaknesses in provider
32、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 scores in the middle of the table in Figure 3 are very small. The scores of the UAE, USand Luxembourg differ only marginally, s
33、o that they can be seen as being basically on the same level.Figure 3. Overall competitiveness 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
34、sample includes 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 factors. The methodology differs from the 2013 report.= average across all ana
35、lysed centresTotal Score C Stability (weight = 25 %)1 Switzerland 83A Business environment(weight = 11 %)61B Provider capability (weight = 36 %)8983D Tax and regulation(weight = 28 %)85(1) (6.8) (31.9) (20.6) (23.7)2 Singapore 75 62 65 83 85(2) (6.8) (23.3) (20.5) (23.9)3 Hong Kong 70 65 56 75 87(3)
36、 (7.2) (20.1) (18.6) (24.2)4 United 72 68 63 70(4) Kingdom 68 (7.9) (24.5) (15.8) (19.5)5 UAE 66 53 56 68 81(6) (5.8) (20.0) (17.0) (22.7)6 United 83 60 63 68(5) States 66 (9.2) (21.7) (15.6) (19.0)7 Luxembourg 64 45 48 81 76(8) (5.0) (17.3) (20.1) (21.3)8 Bahrain 57 36 54 64 62(7) (4.0) (19.5) (15.
37、9) (17.4)9 Panama & 40 37 18 63 51(9) the Caribbean (4.1) (6.3) (15.6) (14.1)max min maxmin max min max min57 57 71(2013 rankings in brackets in left column. Brackets in the 4 success area columns indicate absolute contribution of each area to the total score of that country. The total scores of the
38、 UAE and US differ in decimal places)7410 The Deloitte International Wealth Management Centre Ranking 2018 | Competitiveness rankingFigure 4. Overview of rankings for all competitiveness success factorsB Provider capability: Swiss service quality unsurpassed Swiss service quality is seen as the best
39、 compared to the other centres, with the UK and Singapore ranking second and third. Similar rankings apply to the state of digital maturity: the US, Switzerland and the UK are in the lead. The ranking for Switzerland with regard to the efficiency of wealth management service providers is attributabl
40、e largely to higher service costs.Success factorABusiness environment A1 Infrastructure 2 (2) 3 (1) 4 (3) 6 (8) 5 (4) 1 (5) 7 (6) 8 (7) 9 (9)A2 Attractiveness as traveldestination 3 (2)A3 Capital market 5 (6)8 (6)4 (7)6 (8)3 (4)2 (3)2 (3)7 (4)7 (1)1 (1)1 (2)5 (7)9 (9)9 (9)8 (5)4 (5)6 (8)1 () 4 () 1
41、() 7 () 3 () 6 () 8 () 9 ()BProvidercapabilityA4 Fintech hub (new) 5 ()B1 Human capital 1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 8 (8) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) 9 (9)B2 Wealth management servicequality 1 (1) 6 (4) 6 (6) 2 (3) 4 (6) 3 (1) 8 (9) 4 (5) 9 (8)B3 Efficiency of wealthmanagement service provider 3 ()B4 Digital matu
42、rity (new) 2 ()4 ()4 ()7 ()5 ()6 ()3 ()1 ()7 ()9 ()1 ()5 ()6 ()2 ()8 ()8 ()9 ()C1 (7) 3 (8) 9 (6) 4 (3) 6 (4) 5 (5) 7 (1) 8 (9)8 (8) 3 (4) 6 (6) 7 (2) 9 (9) 1 (1) 2 (5) 5 (7)2 (1) 4 (4) 5 (5) 7 (7) 6 (6) 3 (3) 9 (9) 8 (8)DTaxandStabilityregulation3 (3) 1 (1) 6 (6) 2 (2) 9 (9) 5 (5) 4 (4) 8 (8)1 (3)
43、3 (1) 4 (6) 7 (2) 6 (9) 5 (5) 8 (4) 9 (8)C1 Monetary stability 2 (2)C2 Financial system stability 4 (3)C3 Political stability 1 (2)D1 Tax 7 (7)D2 Regulation 2 (7)D3 Client capital rights protection 1 (1) 5 (3) 4 (4) 3 (5) 6 (2) 8 (7) 9 (9)Overall 1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3)7 (6) 2 (8)4 (4) 5 (6) 6 (5) 7 (8) 8
44、 (7) 9 (9)(2013 rankings in brackets)A Business environment: the US and the UK in the lead The US ranks top almost across the entire board for business environment success factors: Fintech is the exception, where the UK and Singapore have the edge and the US ranks third. Switzerland compares best fo
45、r two factors of lesser importance: for infrastructure, including digital infrastructure and attractiveness as a travel destination - which is relevant only for clients wanting to combine holidays with visiting their wealth management service providers.Figure 3 shows the overall results and the rank
46、ing in the four success areas (A/B/C/D). Figure 4 shows all rankings in the success indicators.11The Deloitte International Wealth Management Centre Ranking 2018 | Competitiveness rankingC Stability: Switzerland is a calm island in the storm, but Singapore andLuxembourg are close behind Switzerland,
47、 Singapore and Luxembourg are the top-ranked centres in terms of political stability, which has now more importance given the rise in global political uncertainty. Switzerland and Singapore also score well for monetary stability, while Switzerland is weaker with regard to financial systems stability
48、, a lingering effect of how Swiss banks fared during the financial crisis.D Tax and regulation: Advantages for Singapore and Hong Kong Hong Kong and Singapore both have high rankings in terms of taxation and regulation, and theUAE also scores well for taxation. Switzerland cannot compete on taxation with low- or no-taxation centres such as the UAE, but it competes well on tax treaties. The good performance of Switzerland in terms of regulation is due more to the quality and fairness of its regulatory bodies than to the quantity of its regulations. Even without bank
