The new edition of New York Magazine asks, is New York falling behind London?

As I wrote over in Syntagma, “Certainly the City — London’s world-class financial centre — is much more vibrant than Wall Street, which is suffering the dead hand of Sarbanes-Oxley regulation. The light-touch, principle-based system of the Square Mile knocks spots off New York’s draconian regime. This, almost alone, allowed the London Stock Exchange to survive a ferocious takeover bid from New York’s Nasdaq recently, simply by pointing out to shareholders that it was in a much better financial position than the American exchange. That kind of insouciance can’t be bought, only built. Very English.”

The magazine also asks, Are we no longer the world’s financial capital?

The Chairman of the London Stock Exchange, Christopher Gibson-Smith, recently gave an interview to The Times (London) considering a number of possible outcomes for the business going forward.

In the wake of the comprehensive defeat of the Nasdaq bid, what threat is posed by the new giant forming across the water in Paris between Euronext and the New York Stock Exchange?

“What’s going to happen”, says Gibson-Smith? “I don’t suppose they know. We watch it really carefully, but it’s not a short-term threat.”

He also dismisses any increased competition arising from Mifid, the new EU directive on financial services, and the prospect of Project Turquoise, a rival trading platform from a consortium of powerful banks. Mifid, he says, offers more opportunities to the LSE than dangers, and more of a threat to continental rivals. “They have tried it before and not achieved it. They might this time. We don’t [believe they will]. We feel confident in being able to deal with it.”

The Chairman points out that the LSE is growing trading volumes by 55 percent a year driven by algorithmic trading, which allows business to be conducted electronically at high speed. “[The system] is transforming capacity to use our transformed market”, he says. “I see a world awash with opportunities.”

However, on global markets, he’s more cautious, “There are some real national barriers in the way of achieving that.” And will the NYSE/Euronext giant come gunning for the LSE? “It’s filling column inches, but …”

Philosophical to the end, Christopher Gibson-smith opines, “There have never been, in my entire business career, fewer than five huge uncertainties that have to be dealt with”.

Whatever happens, it’s obvious the Chairman of the LSE does not intend to be caught napping.

In today’s Times Business, Irwin Stelzer muses about Wall Street’s apparent loss of confidence in its future :

“New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg, all a twitter about Wall Street’s loss of market share to the City of London, hops over to meet financial regulators in the City. SEC chairman Chris Cox tells me he is studying FSA chairman Callum McCarthy’s use of light-handed, principles-based rather than rules-based regulation to control City types who might be overly zealous in their pursuit of bonuses.

“… Bloomberg, Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson and others blame Wall Street’s declining market share on the burdens placed on corporate boards by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Never mind that investment bankers’ fees are higher in America …”

However, not a lot may come of this, Stelzer thinks :

“Despite pressures coming from Messrs Bloomberg and Paulson, Hillary Clinton and others, congress and the SEC are unlikely to do more than make a slight move in the direction of UK-style, principles-based financial regulation.”

No wonder London is feeling fairly confident about its future as a world financial centre when, all around, others are losing their heads.

After its recent triumph in seeing off a distinctly hostile bid from American exchange Nasdaq, the LSE must be ruminating on its long run of successes in similar defensive situations over the past decade. Can it continue indefinitely?

Chairman, Christopher Gibson-Smith appears relaxed about the whole thing : “I joined [the LSE] because of the almost certainty that this sort of thing would happen.”

No regrets, then? “The succession of attacks against the exchange has disrupted our core business from delivering strategically.” In the end, though, “Everything can be dealt with. Everything is amenable to solution. I don’t engage with the world in terms of perceived obstacles that I can’t deal with. … I don’t regard Nasdaq [with 28.75 percent of LSE shares] as an obstacle to a major deal [with another exchange]. I don’t think we have any idea what Nasdaq wants to do.”

On the presence of other predators in the share register, including the no-nonsense hedge funds, Gibson-Smith says : “We ended up with a third generation of … let’s call them hedge funds, but I think of them more as active pursuers of value.”

Pollyana or realist, the LSE Chairman certainly gives the impression of being on top of a confused situation. As well he might in view of the recent run of victorious outcomes. But what of the new wave of consolidations, especially the new giant emerging on its doorstep comprising the New York Stock Exchange, Euronext and the one that got away : Liffe? And Project Turquoise is still to loom on the horizon.

More later.