Ethics and governance in the European Financial centers

It is very interesting to read again all the annual speeches of Juncker before the parliament.


In particular the one he gave last year whereas the text of Levin, Coleman and Obama was known and that the Liechtenstein scandal took place. In 2008, Angel Gurria stated that "Excessive bank secrecy rules and a failure to exchange information on foreign tax evaders are relics of a different time and have no role to play in the relations between democratic societies"

In 2008, Jean-Claude Juncker

- did not speak about the problems of banking secrecy ("secret" : word missing)

- did not speak about the problems of tax evasion ("évasion" : word missing)

- did not speak about the problems of tax haven ("paradis" : word missing)

- did not speak about the abuses the offshore ("offshore" : word missing, "domiciliation" : word missing)

- did not speak about fraud ("fraud" : word missing)

-…


The former years he had spoken about these issues but definitely ignored their acuity in 2008.



In a nutshell, he did not see or did not want to see that he was up against the wind that now is blowing in his face.

Prime Minister Juncker today gave his annual speech before the parliament.

Some paragraphs of the speech in 2000 are worth reading and sometimes commenting as they illustrate that the Luxembourg authorities do not want to adapt to the reality of today’s world.




En 1999, nous avons eu une loi contraignante sur la domiciliation des sociétés, qui devrait mettre fin aux activités illégales et frauduleuses en marge du secteur financier.
(In 1999, we had a constraining law on the domiciliation of companies, which should put an end to the illegal and fraudulent activities in margin of the financial sector.)

The law is not enforced, as the abuse of offshore scams through Luxembourg remains.



Nous voulons conserver le secret bancaire pour de bonnes raisons. Nous voulons le conserver tant que nos concurrents le maintiendront aussi.
(We want to preserve banking secrecy for good reasons. We want to preserve it as long as our competitors will maintain it too.)

He does not quote the reasons. The only “good” reason why banking secrecy should be preserved is that there are competitors that maintain as well banking secrecy.



Notre économie déborde de force et croît de manière robuste. (…) Nous pouvons être contents de l’état de notre économie et de nos finances. Nous pouvons être contents de nous, mais pas au point de nous surestimer ni de nous dépasser.
(Our economy overflows with strength and grows in a robust way. (…) We can be satisfied with the state of our economy and our finances. We can be satisfied with ourselves, but not to the point to over-estimate ourselves nor to get ahead of ourselves.)



Juncker cannot see the coming crisis.

In the previous article relating to Luxembourg I have evoked the impossibility for the actors in the Luxembourg jurisdiction to deal with change.
My wording was based on Spencer Johnson’ famous book: “Who moved my cheese”

I am afraid Switzerland did not realise either the paradigm shift.

In an article Didier Remer lays emphasis on the Swiss situation.

Angel Gurría confirmed in the columns of le Temps that banking secrecy was in question and that the engine was launched, that it would not stop, that the collision was imminent
Swiss leaders were informed of the evolution of international mentalities, and systematically informed on collaboration between OECD and G20.
Additionally, neither Switzerland nor Luxembourg attended the OECD meeting last October, which was the beginning of the process of the reviewing of the OECD list.

The jurisdiction is not exactly in the same situation as Luxembourg. It has a long tradition of finance. It has various alternative industries to finance. And as Didier Remer observed there is a political debate.
(in an article I had highlighted huge business differences between both jurisdictions. )


To the contrary, in a recent interview, Jean Asselborn, who is Vice Prime Minister of Luxembourg stated (in order to soothe and to reassure?) that there is still the fund industry in Luxembourg which has great competences, and many countries trust us, and that there are as well the credit markets (il y a d’autres atouts. Par exemple, au Luxembourg il y a l’industrie des fonds qui a des grandes compétences et beaucoup de pays se fient à nous. Il y a aussi tous les marchés des crédits.)

The problem is that with Jean Asselborn’s statement Luxembourg goes on selling a stinking cheese with
- the Madoff story that just did not happen by chance in Luxembourg, and
- Bank Landsbanki that went bankrupt in a dubious context
- etc.

The problem is that Jean Asselborn belongs to the left wing of the governing coalition.

Which demonstrates that no politician in Luxembourg never ever questions the dysfunctions.