Almost 20 years ago, the Z/Yen Group began work to develop its research on the performance and competitiveness of financial centres. With the support of the City of London, this research developed into the Global Financial Centres Index (GFCI). This index, which has been published every six months since March 2007, provides a dynamic review of the comparative strengths of financial centres. In September 2024, Z/Yen published the 36th edition of the index.
The GFCI is a factor assessment index that combines two distinct sets of data to create a rating for financial centres:
A feature of the development of IFCs has been the growth in the number of financial centres working across borders. In 2007, GFCI 1 provided ratings for 46 financial centres, including just two IFCs – Cayman Islands and Bermuda. GFCI 36, published in September 2024, provides ratings for 121 financial centres worldwide, including all the major IFCs. Over time, the demand for cross-border transactions to support trade and commerce has enabled the growth of international financial services in new markets and new business sectors.
GFCI 36 Results
In GFCI 36, the average rating of centres in the index fell 0.42% compared with GFCI 35, suggesting little change in confidence in the financial sector, with the average rating for centres in Latin America & The Caribbean up 0.65% - the only region in which ratings increased. There was considerable stability in the ranking of the leading 20 centres, with only Dublin improving more than four rank places - up 11. This continues to suggest no major changes in the economic outlook across the leading economies in the world, with slow but continued growth, and inflation falling.
New York leads the index, with London second. Hong Kong has overtaken Singapore to regain third position. San Francisco remains at number five, with Chicago and Los Angeles overtaking Shanghai to place sixth and seventh, with Shanghai now in eighth position. Shenzhen and Frankfurt complete the top ten.
In the separate FinTech rankings, New York retains its leading position, followed by London. Shenzhen overtook San Francisco to take third position by just one rating point. Hong Kong has joined Washington DC, Los Angeles, Chicago, Singapore, and Seoul in the top ten for Fintech, replacing Shanghai, which has dropped to 15th position. As in the main index, there was a fair degree of stability in the rankings with 12 centres dropping 10 or more places and nine centres rising 10 or more places.
IFC Performance In The GFCI
Chart 1 shows the GFCI ratings for IFCs over the five years from early 2019 to late 2023. The trend is on average upwards, with a clear upward trend for IFCs since GFCI 31 (March 2022), although some centres in the group have fallen back a little in GFCI 36. Jersey continues to lead the group, although other centres are performing well, with Guernsey, the Isle of Man, and Bermuda competing for the top place among the group.
Chart 1 | IFC GFCI Ratings Over Five Years
Chart 2 tracks the ranking of IFCs over time. The average rank of IFCs in the GFCI has fallen steadily as more financial centres have entered the index. Most centres have seen a recovery in their rank position in GFCI 36, with the Jersey, Guernsey, the Isle of Man, and Bermuda showing large improvements in their rank position in this edition. Gibraltar fell 10 places in the ranking in GFCI 36, losing some of the ground it had made up in recent years.
Chart 2 | IFC GFCI Rankings Over Five Years
These recent improvements in IFC ratings and rankings appear to show increased confidence in IFCs as economies adjust from the current shocks caused by the aftermath of Covid-19, war, supply chain uncertainties, and rising inflation.
Specialisation & Regional Reputation
There are sectors of finance in which IFCs reputation remains strong. Table 1 shows the results of selected industry sector sub-indices that we run using survey assessments from just those working in different sectors of finance. This shows centre strengths, with all but one of the IFCs ranking higher than their overall GFCI ranking in the investment management sub-index. It also shows weaknesses: in the banking sub-index, all but one IFC rank lower in the banking and insurance sub-indices than their overall GFCI result. Within the professional services sub-index, Guernsey, the Isle of Man, British Virgin Islands, Gibraltar, Bahamas, and Barbados rank higher than their overall GFCI rating.
These results give an indication of which industry sectors rate IFCs more highly than the overall population of financial professionals.
Table 1 | IFC Performance in Selected Industry Sub-Indices
Centre |
GFCI 36 Rank |
Banking |
Investment Management |
Insurance |
Professional Services |
Government & Regulatory |
Finance |
FinTech |
Trading |
Jersey |
30 |
38 |
24 |
37 |
33 |
35 |
35 |
44 |
40 |
Cayman Islands |
81 |
82 |
62 |
89 |
82 |
82 |
83 |
81 |
58 |
Guernsey |
49 |
51 |
43 |
53 |
48 |
46 |
53 |
59 |
47 |
Bermuda |
79 |
86 |
87 |
66 |
82 |
79 |
72 |
81 |
101 |
Isle Of Man |
56 |
67 |
29 |
62 |
45 |
51 |
55 |
61 |
69 |
British Virgin Islands |
109 |
113 |
92 |
117 |
105 |
114 |
112 |
103 |
91 |
Gibraltar |
88 |
91 |
77 |
101 |
69 |
104 |
89 |
103 |
65 |
Bahamas |
103 |
112 |
65 |
119 |
73 |
112 |
97 |
121 |
78 |
Barbados |
89 |
89 |
77 |
108 |
87 |
79 |
68 |
110 |
96 |
We also produce sub-indices based on groups of instrumental factors – the areas of competitiveness in the GFCI. As table 2 shows, IFCs generally perform well in the sub-index relating to business environment measures. In the other sub-indices, there are a mix of results. However, there are successes, with Guernsey and Gibraltar scoring well in Human Capital; Bahamas and Barbados performing well in the infrastructure measures; and Guernsey, the Isle of Man, and the Bahamas doing well in financial sector development. The reputation & general area of competitiveness is a key strength for Barbados.
Table 2 | IFC Performance In The Areas Of Competitiveness Sub-Indices
Centre |
GFCI 36 Rank |
Business Environment |
Human Capital |
Infrastructure |
Financial Sector Development |
Reputation & General |
Jersey |
30 |
49 |
26 |
31 |
36 |
34 |
Cayman Islands |
81 |
80 |
81 |
75 |
84 |
98 |
Guernsey |
49 |
45 |
38 |
68 |
21 |
48 |
Bermuda |
79 |
71 |
81 |
79 |
84 |
80 |
Isle Of Man |
56 |
60 |
55 |
86 |
37 |
54 |
British Virgin Islands |
109 |
117 |
108 |
115 |
114 |
114 |
Gibraltar |
88 |
88 |
68 |
96 |
105 |
100 |
Bahamas |
103 |
103 |
117 |
79 |
75 |
120 |
Barbados |
89 |
80 |
105 |
68 |
92 |
61 |
When looking at relative assessments in the GFCI survey, for all Caribbean centres other than British Virgin Islands, the assessments given by respondents from North America in the GFCI survey are higher than the global average, whereas these same respondents tend to rate European IFCs below the global average. The opposite pattern is true for respondents from Western Europe, who generally rate European IFCs higher than the global average, and Caribbean centres generally lower.
However, between 16% (Jersey) and 45% (Bermuda) of assessments provided to IFCs are from people in the Asia/Pacific region. One year ago, with the publication of GFCI 24, all IFCs were rated lower than the global average by people in Asia/Pacific. Now, assessments from Asia/Pacific for Bahamas, Barbados, Gibraltar, and the British Virgin Islands are higher than the global average, suggesting a shift in sentiment among this audience.
Financial Centre Challenges
Financial centres worldwide continue to face challenges to their development. We undertook specific research in 2024 on the key challenges facing international financial centres in the medium term. Chart 3 shows the response to our survey on this issue, with the highest number of respondents to the survey saying that geopolitical challenges are clearly seen as the most important risk, mentioned by over 21% of respondents. Competition from other centres and regulatory requirements were mentioned by 15% and 14% of respondents respectively. Changing regional and national priorities was also mentioned by over 12% of those responding.
Chart 3 | Most Important Financial Centre Challenges
Other challenges identified by respondents were:
Through the Global Financial Centres Index, the Global Green Finance Index, and the Smart Centres Index, Z/Yen will continue to track the development of the world’s financial and commercial centres as they continue to make progress in serving the needs of international business.
Mike Wardle
Mike Wardle is Chief Executive Officer for Z/Yen, managing work on the development and delivery of the Global Financial Centres Index, Global Green Finance Index, and Smart Centres Index.
Mike worked as a civil servant for almost 20 years mostly within the field of education policy. He was a director and then Chief Executive of the General Social Care Council, establishing the regulation of social workers.
Mike's career moved into consultancy, programme management and coaching and he worked with Z/Yen for six years delivering programme management services to the Church of England, Unison, and the Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust and Chelsea and Westminster NHS Foundation Trust before taking up his current role.