This thought has been brewing for awhile, but since I find triumphalism—and
even gloating—rather loathsome, I have kept it out of these pages. Until
now.
The thought is: US-based firms have out-maneuvered their UK-based
counterparts in staking out a serious presence on the other guys’ home
turf. To be precise, the footprint of US-based firms in London specifically
and Europe generally is far vaster than the footprint of UK-based in
New York specifically and the domestic US generally.
To discerning observers of the market, this is not news; it only becomes
news when a pithy
article sums up the frustrations of the Magic Circle
and contrasts it with the recent coup of Milbank on their home turf.
So there: We’ve said it. Now to the far more interesting
questions:
- Q.: Are there systemic differences in how US- and UK-based
firms approach overseas expansion. A.: There must be (tautologically
said). - Q.: Are those differences cultural, financial, or both? A.: Almost
to a certainty, both (still in the realm of the tautological). - Q.: How can we describe, and what accounts for the origin of,
those differences? A.: Now it’s getting interesting; stay
tuned.
