Getting out while the getting is good

Never forget that the managers of huge companies are pragmatists, not nationalists.

And that means, while governments are busy wrapping themselves in the flag of whatever country they are running, businesses in that country are having a good hard look at the bottom line implications of flag-waving patriotic behaviour. Perhaps the best example is what’s going on in Britain as that country approaches its exit from the European Union. Uneasy about what a postBrexit Britain will bring, financial services companies are pulling up stakes and moving both assets and staff out of the country. An EY study published on Monday indicated that such companies planned to move US$1 trillion in assets out of Britain, opting to build up operations in cities like Paris or Frankfurt. In addition to that financial number — which EY says may increase as the March 29 Brexit date approaches — one-third of the 222 financial companies contacted said they intended to relocate some part of their operations to EU countries. Some downplay the number, saying it’s only a fraction of the US$8-trillion United Kingdom banking sector — and that’s true. The fraction, one-eighth, is still quite a staggering shift of capital. “We know that behind the scenes firms are continuing to plan for a ‘no deal’ scenario. The closer we get to 29 March without a deal, the more assets will be transferred, and headcount hired locally or relocated,” Omar Ali, a U.K. financial services official with EY told CNBC. “Inevitably, the contingency plans are for day one only, and in the event of ‘no deal’ will represent the tip of the iceberg as longer-term plans will be more strategic and extensive than those publicly announced to date.” Other analysts say the EY number is within the range they expect, but say that if Brexit goes ahead, the moved assets could double to US$2 trillion within the year.

Is it a surprise? Well, no. Companies generally flee instability for stability. People with long enough memories in this country can recall that, when Quebec separatism was peaking, companies were moving out, primarily to Ontario. Other provinces, from Newfoundland and Labrador to, most recently, Alberta, have political leaders who argue vociferously about how hard done by they are in the Canadian federation, but much of that noise is meant for the hometown crowd. Pragmatically, most governments realize that the smaller you are, the harder everything becomes: getting bonds placed, attracting business, paying for your own defence costs and border patrols, and the list goes on.

And on top of all of it, companies that governments may be depending to stay in a post-breakup spot are doing the corporate math: does it make more sense to stay in a country that’s closing itself off, or does it mean more markets, more opportunity, and less red tape to go somewhere where you can work in a larger playing field?

Sometimes, people realize success inside their own small orbits: New England lobster fishermen, unable to competitively sell to China because of Trump tariffs, are instead selling lobster to Atlantic Canadian firms so we can add a mark-up, sell to China and still beat the added-tariff price.

In other words, building your own political and national fortress can be good political sport, but, unless you’re large enough to dictate your own rules, it’s bad business. It probably should go without saying that it’s better to find your region’s particular strength in the global economy than it is to build tariff walls and just spin money around your own small orbit. Problem is, many people and some politicians don’t realize that until the pragmatists of business start getting on the bus and voting with their feet.