The Financial Times is no longer a credible witness

The Financial Times has seen fit to publish an article which appears to be a re-spinning of public relations from the fund analysts industry.  Analysts are basically part of the marketing function of financial institutions, i.e. low-level salesmen.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d3b5d766-dbbb-11e5-a72f-1e7744c66818.html#axzz41N2z4xli

In trade, Brexit will certainly trigger a struggle between EU members and the UK, but no more than would normally have happened anyway.  Troublemakers will find that Brexit triggers far few opportunities than they might have initially thought.  The FT should know this, so why scaremonger?

International insurance law centers on London because it is the most convenient legal system to use, and replacing it would cost more than any benefit the change would cause.  Insurers are a major customer of fund managers.  The FT should know this, so why scaremonger?

The FT writes:

In the worst-case scenario, UK-based fund managers could be stripped of access to EU investors “overnight”, according to a senior regulatory expert who asked to remain anonymous.

What a load of bullshit!  EU investors need liquidity (free-flowing cash) even more so when idiot European regulators ban liquidity measures (such as short-selling).  The 'source' is clearly illiterate in basic economics and finance (no surprise there, then).  No wonder the 'source' remained anonymous, assuming there is a genuine source at all.  The FT should know better, so why scaremonger?