Financial Secrecy Index Shedding light on global financial secrecy

2016 Annual Meeting of Community of Practice on Composite Indicators and Scoreboards 29 September 2016

Markus Meinzer, TJN, Director

1 Overview

1. Motivation & Conceptual Issues

2. Index structure – FSI qualitative component: Secrecy score – FSI quantitative component: Global scale weight – Combination Secrecy score * Global scale weight

3. Results FSI 2015

4. Outlook – FSI Review 2016

2 1. Motivation & Conceptual Issues

• FSI published by Justice Network. Identifies and ranks secrecy jurisdictions (‘tax havens’) by their contribution to opacity in international finance • Long-term project: 60 jurisdictions (2009), 73 (2011), 82 (2013) and 102 (2015) • Two broad objectives: 1. Research: by collecting data and providing an analytical framework for (facilitation of)

2. Impact: initiate, support and monitor policy changes globally towards more financial transparency by engaging the media, policy makers & academia

3 “America, the country that has arm-twisted so many others to join the transparency revolution, is dragging its feet.” 1. Motivation & Conceptual Issues Papers FINANCIAL SECRECY INDEX OECD’s GLOBAL FORUM FSI: “Panama # 13”

“Ready to Move to Phase 2” “No longer subject to monitoring” “One of the most reliable predictors of a country’s dealings All Countries with Mossack Fonseca is how it scores on the Financial Secrecy Index” 1. Motivation & Conceptual Issues

• Concern for harm caused by „tax havens“ and „illicit financial flows“

• Yet no agreed definitions of “tax havens“, “offshore financial centres“ or even “offshore finance“ (Cobham/Jansky/Meinzer 2015)

• “you know it when you see it“ approach (Gordon/IRS 1981)

 Inconsistent listings and policies towards “tax havens“

6 푁 푗푢푟푖푠푑푖푐푡푖표푛푠 표푛 1 푙푖푠푡 = 3.4

푁푗푢푟푖푠푑푖푐푡푖표푛푠 표푛 푎푙푙 8 푙푖푠푡푠

Graph 2: Jurisdictions’ incidence on international listings How many of the 84 jurisdictions are listed on how many international tax

lists (out of 8)? Source: Meinzer 2016 Meinzer Source:

푁 푗푢푟푖푠푑푖푐푡푖표푛푠 표푛 1 푙푖푠푡 = 2.2 푁푗푢푟푖푠푑푖푐푡푖표푛푠 표푛 푎푙푙 8 푙푖푠푡푠

7 1. Motivation & Conceptual Issues

22 June 2015: 29 June 2015: 12 Oct 2015

Quelle: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/23f1cffa-1696- 11e5-9883- 00144feabdc0.html#axzz3pmCAGFhp; 27.10.2015.

Quelle: Quelle: http://bernews.com/2015/06/bermuda- http://www.volksblatt.li/nachricht.aspx?p blacklisted-/; 27.10.2015. 1=fl&id=97599&src=vb; 27.10.2015. 8 1. Motivation & Conceptual Issues

Why is there no consistent definition and identification of ‘tax havens‘, and why have attempts to address problems associated with them failed? • Blacklist approaches are difficult to insulate from political influence. • ‘Tax havenry‘ is a matter of degree, not a binary variable (Wójcik 2012: 7); “virtually any country might be a `haven’ in relation to another” (Picciotto 1992: 132). • Tax is not the crucial element for problems created by ‘tax havenry‘ – rather, secrecy is (Murphy 2008).

 ‘Secrecy jurisdiction‘ is a potentially more useful and accurate concept (broadly defined and explored first by Murphy 2008). • Definition: A secrecy jurisdiction provides facilities that enable people or entities escape or undermine the laws, rules and regulations of other jurisdictions elsewhere, using secrecy as a prime tool. 9

2. Index Structure

FSI measures contribution to global financial secrecy via two components:

(Secrecy Score) How much opacity each jurisdiction offers to non-residents (to allow them to escape/undermine laws, rules, elsewhere) WEIGHTED BY (Global Scale Weight) The jurisdiction’s market share of financial services for non- residents (based on IMF’s Zoromé 2007) SECRECY SCORE GLOBAL SCALE WEIGHT

COMBINATION 2. Index Structure

• Secrecy Score fed by 15 equally weighted Key Financial Secrecy Indicators (KFSIs) • All data feeding the KFSIs is publicly available in database reports, fully referenced to public data sources • A maximum of 46 variables feeds the KFSIs, and the database reports contain up to 204 variables for each of the 102 countries • Principle of data analysis: lowest available transparency denominator is decisive

11 2. Index Structure

Lowest available transparency denominator! 2. Index Structure

Global Scale Weight for jurisdiction i is defined as:

퐸푥푝표푟푡푠 표푓푓𝑖푛푎푛푐𝑖푎푙 푠푒푟푣𝑖푐푒푠 (푡푟푢푒 표푟 푒푥푡푟푎푝표푙푎푡푒푑)푖

푆푢푚 표푓 푎푙푙 푤표푟푙푑 푒푥푝표푟푡푠 표푓푓𝑖푛푎푛푐𝑖푎푙 푠푒푟푣𝑖푐푒푠 (푡푟푢푒 & 푒푥푡푟푎푝표푙푎푡푒푑)

Data FSI All ‘True‘ data (BOPS) 66/102 125/247 Extrapolations - asset data (IIP/CIPS) 10/102 25/247 Extrapolations - liability data (CIPS) 25/102 71/247 No data 1/102 24/247

13 2. Index Structure

• Both components are combined in the following way in order to attribute an FSI value to each jurisdiction i:

퐹𝑖푛푎푛푐𝑖푎푙 푆푒푐푟푒푐푦 퐼푛푑푒푥푖 3 3 = 푆푒푐푟푒푐푦 푆푐표푟푒푖 ∗ 퐺푙표푏푎푙 푆푐푎푙푒 푊푒𝑖푔ℎ푡푖

• An example to illustrate reason for combination:

14 2. Index Structure

Whose secrecy provisions pose a bigger risk? 2. Index Structure

16 3. Results FSI 2015

Ranking FSI Secrecy Score Global Scale Weight 1 2 3 USA 4 St. Lucia 5 Darussalam Switzerland 6 Luxembourg Antigua & Barbuda Cayman Islands 7 Lebanon Singapore 8 Germany Hong Kong S.A.R. 9 Bahrein Bahamas 10 Dubai / UAE Ireland Average of SS 68.0 81.9 57.4 Sum of GSW 56.5% 0.5% 78.7%

FSI TAX HAVEN LISTS 3. Results FSI 2015

FSI 2015 - FINAL RESULTS RANK Jurisdiction FSI Value4 Secrecy Score5 Global Scale Weight6 1 Switzerland2 1.466,1 73 5,625 2 Hong Kong2 1.259,4 72 3,842 3 USA2 1.254,8 60 19,603 4 Singapore2 1.147,1 69 4,280 5 Cayman Islands1,2 1.013,2 65 4,857 6 Luxembourg2 817,0 55 11,630 7 Lebanon2 760,2 79 0,377 8 Germany2 701,9 56 6,026 9 Bahrain2 471,4 74 0,164 10 (Dubai)2,3 440,8 77 0,085 11 Macao 420,2 70 0,188 12 Japan2 418,4 58 1,062 13 Panama2 415,7 72 0,132 14 Marshall Islands 405,6 79 0,053 15 United Kingdom1,2 380,2 41 17,394 16 Jersey2 354,0 65 0,216 17 339,4 64 0,231 18 (Labuan)3 338,7 75 0,050 19 320,9 64 0,182 20 312,2 54 0,743 21 British Virgin Islands1,2 307,7 60 0,281

18 4. Outlook – FSI Review 2016

1. Independent Statistical Audit by JRC, ongoing

2. FSI expert stakeholder survey, January to March 2016 – Collecting feedback and suggestions for improvement – Testing support for suggested changes – 86-136 respondents – economics, accounting, law and political science – experts within civil society; international institutions; rating agencies; tax authority officials

3. Reform proposal, ongoing (end 2016) 19 Literature • Cobham, Alex/Janský, Petr/Meinzer, Markus 2015: The Financial Secrecy Index: Shedding New Light on the Geography of Secrecy, in: Economic Geography 91: 3, 281–303. • Gordon, Richard/Internal - US Treasury 1981: Tax Havens and Their Use by United States Taxpayers - an Overview (13.1.1981), Washington, DC. • Hines, James R./Rice, Eric M. 1994: Fiscal Paradise: Foreign Tax Havens and American Business, in: Quarterly Journal of Economics 109: 1, 149-182. • Johannesen, Niels/Zucman, Gabriel 2014: The End of ? An Evaluation of the G20 Tax Haven Crackdown, in: American Economic Journal: Economic Policy 6: 1, 65-91. • Meinzer, Markus 2016: Towards a Common Yardstick to Identify Tax Havens and to Facilitate Reform, in: Rixen, Thomas/Dietsch, Peter (Eds.): Global Tax Governance – What is Wrong with it, and How to Fix it, Colchester, 255-288. • Murphy, Richard 2008: Finding the Secrecy World. Rethinking the language of ‘offshore’, in: http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2008/08/27/finding-the-secrecy-world/; 8.9.2008. • Murphy, Richard 2009: Where are the World’s Secrecy Jurisdictions? , Downham Market, in: http://www.secrecyjurisdictions.com/PDF/SJ_Mapping.pdf; 18.07.2013. • Palan, Ronen/Murphy, Richard/Chavagneux, Christian 2010: Tax Havens. How Really Works, London. • Picciotto, Sol 1992: International Business Taxation. A Study in the Internationalization of Business Regulation, London. • United States Senate - Committee on Finance 2002: Grassley Works to Stop Abusive Tax Shelters, Corporate Flight (May 10, 2002), Washington, DC, in: http://www.finance.senate.gov/newsroom/ranking/release/?id=770c61f8-32ad-4ca9-b447- 0c22ea0b7df7; 30.9.2013. • Wojcik, Dariusz 2012: Where Governance Fails: Advanced Business Services and the Offshore World, in: Progress in Human Geography, 1-18. • Zoromé, Ahmed 2007: Concept of Offshore Financial Centers: In Search of an Operational Definition (IMF Working Paper), Washington D.C., in: http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2007/wp0787.pdf; 20 26.9.2011. Thank you!

More Information:

 http://www.financialsecrecyindex.com

 http://www.taxjustice.net

 http://www.treasureislands.org/

21