Nothing to do with Brexit either...

[^woody^]

Cash I guess.
I think it's more to do with being in Ireland rather than London and that is why it has made headlines. The shock that these companies see somewhere other than the UK (London) to be their financial domain.

Panic. Worry. Uncertainty. Goodby UK, hello Ireland and the EU.

No can't be cash, that makes no sense. No one has or moves £9b of cash. It's all electronic. Even so if this company actual had £9b in cash sitting somewhere, actual moving it outside the UK would make no difference - except free up a lot of room.

So where is halal when you want her to explain things and actually back up her statement?

 

[noseall]

moving it outside the UK would make no difference

Silly for the press for reporting it. Might as well left it where it was. Or perhaps not eh Woods.

It shows one thing, financial institutions are positioning themselves for the better in the event of a no-deal Brexit. They want access to the all important EU and even a whiff of not getting that access, means going to the trouble of shifting business elsewhere. These financial institutions are moving out of mighty London to ….Ireland and for one reason only - access to the EU.

 

[noseall]

make no difference - except...

...loss of tax revenue and jobs.

Who cares.

 

[darrington]

I'm still waiting

You'll wait a long time I think Woody.

 

[jasonzyx]

No can't be cash, that makes no sense. No one has or moves £9b of cash. It's all electronic. Even so if this company actual had £9b in cash sitting somewhere, actual moving it outside the UK would make no difference - except free up a lot of room.

So where is halal when you want her to explain things and actually back up her statement?

Has no-one explained it to you yet?
I'll start the ball rolling, then maybe others will chip in with their ideas.
Suppose my assets consist of £100,000 easily obtainable liquidity (cash if you like), £100,000 shares, a few houses to let, perhaps some investments in funds, etc.

Taking the liquidity assets first: you kind of confused yourself, talking about wads of cash and it all being electronic. Of course my £100,000 is not in a couple of shoes boxes in the wardrobe. It is in, say, a instant access savings account. This pays me some interest. It pays that interest to me wherever I happen to be registered. I then pay tax on that interest, to wherever I happen to be registered for tax purposes. I am at liberty to decide where I invest that liquidity. Of course if I am a financial organisation, I must maintain a percentage of my total assets as easily available liquidity, according to the law, of where ever I am registered.

Looking at the shares, of course I do not have a share certificate for each share that I hold. I do not even have a certificate for each block of shares that I hold. It is all electronic, and those shares are registered to me, where ever I choose to be registered, paying tax on those dividends, to whichever government I am registered with for tax.

The houses to let, of course I do not move those houses. They are where they are. But they are registered to me, and I pay my tax on the rent received from those properties.

Get the idea now? Obviously the loss of tax revenue on £9bn of assets will be substantial.

So the £17bn - £25bn p.a shortfall in the public finances, that Sammy referred to in another thread, ( https://www.diynot.com/diy/threads/now-its-honda-leaving.518510/page-4#ixzz5gFXtt9LM ) is partly explained by the moving of assets, and the subsequent loss of taxes.

To put this into context: the chancellor expects to borrow about £25bn this year to plug the hole in the deficit (assuming an orderly transition period).
Now if these assets remained in the UK, and the UK benefited from the payment of taxes on the income received from those assets, the chancellor maybe would not need to borrow this year.........

I hope that helps you to understand the importance of assets being registered in the UK, or not.
Don't forget that the relative difference could be twofold. Not only is the UK deprived of the benefit of the tax from those assets, but another country is now benefiting form that income, making the UK relatively twice as worse off.

 

[^woody^]

Has no-one explained it to you yet?
I'll start the ball rolling, then maybe others will chip in with their ideas.
Suppose my assets consist of £100,000 easily obtainable liquidity (cash if you like), £100,000 shares, a few houses to let, perhaps some investments in funds, etc.

Taking the liquidity assets first: you kind of confused yourself, talking about wads of cash and it all being electronic. Of course my £100,000 is not in a couple of shoes boxes in the wardrobe. It is in, say, a instant access savings account. This pays me some interest. It pays that interest to me wherever I happen to be registered. I then pay tax on that interest, to wherever I happen to be registered for tax purposes. I am at liberty to decide where I invest that liquidity. Of course if I am a financial organisation, I must maintain a percentage of my total assets as easily available liquidity, according to the law, of where ever I am registered.

Looking at the shares, of course I do not have a share certificate for each share that I hold. I do not even have a certificate for each block of shares that I hold. It is all electronic, and those shares are registered to me, where ever I choose to be registered, paying tax on those dividends, to whichever government I am registered with for tax.

The houses to let, of course I do not move those houses. They are where they are. But they are registered to me, and I pay my tax on the rent received from those properties.

Get the idea now?

So the £17bn - £25bn p.a shortfall in the public finances, that Sammy referred to in another thread, is partly explained by the moving of assets, and the subsequent loss of taxes.

To put this into context: the chancellor expects to borrow about £25bn this year to plug the hole in the deficit (assuming an orderly transition period).
Now if these assets remained in the UK, and the UK benefited from the payment of taxes on the income received from those assets, the chancellor maybe would not need to borrow this year.........

I hope that helps you to understand the importance of assets being registered in the UK, or not.
Don't forget that the relative difference could be twofold. Not only is the UK deprived of the benefit of the tax from those assets, but another country is now benefiting form that income, making the UK relatively twice as worse off.

That's all lovely, but it explains nothing about the OP.

Halal stated that Aviva are moving £9b of "assets" abroad, and she implied it was some great loss.

Now Aviva are an insurance company. They can't move shares. Nobody can move shares thats a nonsense. Do they have shares to "move"? I don't think so.

They are not physically moving houses, offices, or anything else. They might sell an office or give up a lease, but that is different to "moving assests abroad", and I doubt they have £9b worth of offices or property anyway.

So what are these actual "assets" that Aviva are moving abraod, that are going to cause some massive impact as implied by halal? Not might be or could be, but what are they?

BTW, where is halal?

 

[jasonzyx]

but it explains nothing about the OP.
Halal stated that Aviva are moving £9b of "assets" abroad,
Now Aviva are an insurance company. They can't move shares. Nobody can move shares thats a nonsense. Do they have shares to "move"? I don't think so.
They are not physically moving houses, offices, or anything else. They might sell an office or give up a lease, but that is different to "moving assests abroad", and I doubt they have £9b worth of offices or property anyway.
So what are these actual "assets" that Aviva are moving abraod, that are going to cause some massive impact as implied by halal? Not might be or could be, but what are they?

I have no idea what assets Aviva hold. I suspect you could find out if you were genuinely interested.
For me it is sufficient to know that it is £9bn worth. Any taxes on the income generated by those assets will now be paid into whichever tax authority they are registered, which is not now the UK.
As for physically moving those assets, I don't think you have understood my explanation.
Edit I don't think there is any suggestion that Aviva are moving all of their assets, just £9bn worth of their assets.

As to "that are going to cause some massive impact as implied", I do not recognise the implication.

BTW, where is halal?

Don't you mean "what is halal?"

Edit: I suspect that if you read the OP reference, a lot of your questions would have been answered.
Additionally, this is just the tip of the iceberg:

Several banks – including Barclays, Royal Bank of Scotland, Lloyds, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and a host of others – have set up continental hubs in preparation for Brexit.​

This involves hundreds of jobs and hundreds of billions in assets being shifted out of London, hitting the Treasury’s tax revenue and denting the capital’s reputation as a financial centre.
From the OP's reference.​

 

[durhamplumber]

Has no-one explained it to you yet?
I'll start the ball rolling, then maybe others will chip in with their ideas.
Suppose my assets consist of £100,000 easily obtainable liquidity (cash if you like), £100,000 shares, a few houses to let, perhaps some investments in funds, etc.

Taking the liquidity assets first: you kind of confused yourself, talking about wads of cash and it all being electronic. Of course my £100,000 is not in a couple of shoes boxes in the wardrobe. It is in, say, a instant access savings account. This pays me some interest. It pays that interest to me wherever I happen to be registered. I then pay tax on that interest, to wherever I happen to be registered for tax purposes. I am at liberty to decide where I invest that liquidity. Of course if I am a financial organisation, I must maintain a percentage of my total assets as easily available liquidity, according to the law, of where ever I am registered.

Looking at the shares, of course I do not have a share certificate for each share that I hold. I do not even have a certificate for each block of shares that I hold. It is all electronic, and those shares are registered to me, where ever I choose to be registered, paying tax on those dividends, to whichever government I am registered with for tax.

The houses to let, of course I do not move those houses. They are where they are. But they are registered to me, and I pay my tax on the rent received from those properties.

Get the idea now? Obviously the loss of tax revenue on £9bn of assets will be substantial.

So the £17bn - £25bn p.a shortfall in the public finances, that Sammy referred to in another thread, ( https://www.diynot.com/diy/threads/now-its-honda-leaving.518510/page-4#ixzz5gFXtt9LM ) is partly explained by the moving of assets, and the subsequent loss of taxes.

To put this into context: the chancellor expects to borrow about £25bn this year to plug the hole in the deficit (assuming an orderly transition period).
Now if these assets remained in the UK, and the UK benefited from the payment of taxes on the income received from those assets, the chancellor maybe would not need to borrow this year.........

I hope that helps you to understand the importance of assets being registered in the UK, or not.
Don't forget that the relative difference could be twofold. Not only is the UK deprived of the benefit of the tax from those assets, but another country is now benefiting form that income, making the UK relatively twice as worse off.

More dingbat analogies