A curious phenomenon is happening. The word ‘offshore’ is disappearing. Over the past year-or-so, I’ve noticed that company after company – banks, building societies, IFAs, trust companies – have quietly dropped the word from their titles. At the same time, offshore advisors, governments, regulators have done the same – think of someone in a suit who lives on an island, and you won’t now hear them utter the word.

For example, the latest to do so is the venerable Jersey based Abbey National Offshore, which this month re-launches as Abbey International. Partly, an Abbey inmate tells me, to come into line with Abbey National in Britain’s recent re-branding (it is now just ‘Abbey’ and has a sort of ethereal, sky-blue presence on the high street). Indeed, Abbey International is now decked out in swish type-face, shimmering post-modern colours and is, my mole tells me, “getting rid of the whole ‘grey bank’ idea”. Very nice. But the word ‘offshore’ was first for the chop.

But what is the significance in the dumping of the ‘offshore’ tag? My instinct – and several other moles – tells me that the word is becoming politically incorrect, now. It connotes too much of the “greedy tax haven” for comfort. In the current climate of piercing scrutiny from international bodies like the OECD, the EU and Gordon Brown, the traditional persona of the offshore island has run its course. In fact, the governments and promotional agencies of these places get a bit annoyed now if you call them ‘offshore’ islands. And God help you if you say “tax haven”.

Phrases such as ‘tax avoidance’, too, which used to be seen merely as descriptions of what it was perfectly legal to do (i.e. reduce, within the law, the amount of tax you pay) are avoided now. “Tax mitigation” is my favourite replacement.

The changes are not all that unreasonable. For a start, there isn’t the same sharp distinction between on- and off-shore as there once was. Remember that offshore centres got their big boost in the 1970s when marginal income tax rates were 83 per cent and an ‘investment levy’ added another 15 per cent. You might moan about paying too much tax, but you’re not paying 98 per cent any more.

Also, there is a reasonable desire among firms and governments to get across an accurate message about what, exactly, an offshore jurisdiction is really all about. Rightly or wrongly, words like ‘offshore’ and ‘haven’ conjure up negative images in the minds of many. Places like Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man, have a good and strong message to get across. If ‘offshore’ gets in the way, then it should fade into history.

There’s a final reason why banks like Abbey choose to style themselves as ‘International’ rather than ‘Offshore’ institutions. Their horizons are now much wider than the word ‘offshore’ implies. If the old offshore world once meant a few Brits banking offshore, today places like the Channel Islands are more like the convenient headquarters of an evolving breed of international banks and financial institutions which service highly skilled, highly mobile individuals wherever they are in the world.

But to our issue: we’ve redesigned the fund stats page to make it clearer andmore informative. If you normally skip over the last 10 pages, don’t.

Elsewhere, Hugh Fasken will tell you why a firm trying to sell you a ‘Themed investment’ is talking rubbish. I’ll tell you something about expat banking in Asia. Tim Hyam will report back from Gibraltar on its 300th birthday and Saundra Satterlee explains what modular healthcare is. Phew.

James Featherstone
Editor
jfeatherstone@ccplcemail.co.uk