Privateers of the Caribbean: The Hedge Funds–US–UK–Offshore Nexus

Abstract

This article argues that a nexus exists between private profit-orienteded actors (privateers and hedge funds) — being only lightly regulated by their home countries (Britain and America) — and ‘offshore’ territories located in the Caribbean and elsewhere in the Anglo-Saxon world. This article argues that the ultimate reason for this nexus is the common ‘Lockean’ state/society complex of the UK and the US. The analysis of hedge funds as privateers reveals that both benefit at the expense of others, while the geographic regions in which they are based are virtually the same — London and New York/Boston. Furthermore, this article shows that the hedge fund ‘value chain’ is clearly dominated by the US and the UK. Most hedge funds are based in Offshore Financial Centres (OFCs). While this is commonplace, by introducing the OFC-Intensity Ratio we show that the most intensive OFCs are under the sovereignty of the US and the UK.

The Financialisation of Rental Housing 2.0: Releasing Housing into the Privatised Mainstream of Capital Accumulation

“…These funds create and manage real estate portfolios by collecting investment capital and leveraging it with credit from investments banks or the shadow banking system. Operating with little equity and high leverage ratios, private equity funds aim to make high returns but are also exposed to high default risks (Fichtner ; Kofner ). Their business model is based on “buying low and selling high”—i.e.…”

“The persistent myth of lost hegemony,” revisited: structural power as a complex network phenomenon

“…This may partially be the result of domestic political choices in those countries to remain partially closed to global capital movements (Aizenman et al, 2008), but for countries with open capital accounts there is also evidence from descriptive and inferential statistical network analyses that support the preferential attachment mechanism (Winecoff, 2013). Even the emergence of offshore financial havens is dominated by Anglo-American finance (Fichtner, 2014). This private sector financial dominance—and the infrastructure related to it, such as the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT) payments system—allows the US government to threaten, or impose, financial sanctions and regulatory rules on others (Emmenegger, 2015; Farrell and Newman, 2019; Oatley and Winecoff, 2012).…”

Sustainability and the renewed semi-professionalism of leading Anglo-American financial services firms

“…Another prominent example of enduring short-termism and disregard for wider notions of sustainability in Anglo-American banking since 2007 has been the persistence of so-called I'll be gone and you'll be gone (I.B.G-Y.B.G) attitudes in remuneration structures rewarding excessive risk-taking with massive bonuses and pay packages (Hill, 2011). Major Anglo-American banks have furthermore privileged immediate profits whilst neglecting long-term systemic sustainability by continuing to fund environmentally damaging operations (Gass, 2011); speculating in agricultural commodity markets (Clapp, 2013); and facilitating client tax avoidance (Fichtner, 2014; Shaxson, 2011) as well as financial transfers on behalf of clients that have included authoritarian governments, terrorist organizations and drug cartels (Murphy, 2013; Tsingou, 2014: 142). The sum of these and other activities, including manipulations of various key markets benchmark rates that have entailed costs for individuals and public institutions worldwide, 4 has led prominent regulators to question the ‘social usefulness’ of the major Anglo-American banks (Haldane, 2012).…”