In today’s world, if you’re bold enough to spin a grand narrative, there will always be those willing to buy into it. The idea that Hong Kong has become nothing more than the “ruins of an international financial centre” is a prime example of such myth-making.
Western Narratives vs. Hong Kong’s Reality
Let’s rewind to late 2023. After the pandemic, Hong Kong’s economy, having briefly rebounded, began to lose steam. The stock market languished. At that time, online chatter claimed that Hong Kong had already lost its status as Asia’s premier financial hub to Singapore as early as March. The phrase “Hong Kong is now just the ruins of an international financial centre” spread like wildfire online, quickly picked up and amplified by Western media outlets eager to reinforce their preferred narrative.
IPO Boom and Global Rankings
Yet, reality has a way of catching up with fiction. Just last week, Contemporary Amperex Technology Co. Limited (CATL) – the world’s largest battery maker – listed in Hong Kong, raising a staggering HK$35.7 billion. This single listing propelled the Hong Kong Stock Exchange’s (HKEX) IPO fundraising for 2025 to over HK$60 billion, far outstripping last year’s numbers. With this, HKEX reclaimed its position as the world’s leading fundraising venue, delivering a sharp rebuke to those who so confidently declared Hong Kong’s demise.
According to data from Wind, as of May 21, 2025, HKEX’s 2025 IPO fundraising stood at US$8.42 billion. For comparison, the Nasdaq raised US$6.62 billion, while the New York Stock Exchange managed US$4.87 billion in the same period. Hong Kong is back at the top of the global fundraising league, thanks largely to a wave of major Mainland Chinese firms choosing to list here. Singapore, often held up as Hong Kong’s supposed replacement, has seen just one IPO this year, raising a modest US$140 million. In all of 2024, the Singapore Exchange hosted only four IPOs, raising a paltry US$34.4 million – barely a rounding error compared to Hong Kong’s haul.
Some might dismiss this as a temporary blip. But the evidence suggests otherwise. The IPO pipeline in Hong Kong is set to surge. Many heavyweight A-share companies are accelerating their plans to list here, including Foshan Haitian Flavouring & Food, Seres Group, and Sichuan Biokin Pharmaceuticals. They’ve already filed applications with HKEX, lining up for their turn. All signs point to a blockbuster year for Hong Kong IPOs.
Looking at the bigger picture, Wind’s statistics show that over the past decade, Hong Kong’s IPO fundraising has been anything but lacklustre. Buoyed by the relentless growth of China’s economy and its tech giants, industry leaders have flocked to list in the city. From 2014 to 2024, HKEX’s cumulative IPO fundraising reached US$304.7 billion – the highest in the world. In the same period, after excluding Special Purpose Acquisition Companies (SPACs), the New York Stock Exchange raised US$290.2 billion, Nasdaq US$276.6 billion, and the London Stock Exchange US$59.2 billion – all trailing behind Hong Kong.
Of course, it’s true that Hong Kong’s IPO market cooled in 2022 and 2023. Fundraising volumes dropped sharply, a result of both the Mainland and Hong Kong economies feeling the pinch from pandemic border closures and the US flooding its markets with liquidity and fiscal stimulus. This fuelled a bull run in US stocks, drawing capital away from Hong Kong. It was in this context that the “financial centre ruins” narrative took root – a mix of market realities and the frustration of some foreign investors over Hong Kong’s COVID policies, which led some to relocate executives to Singapore.
Market Recovery and Policy Support
Nevertheless, perspective is everything. Since the fourth quarter of last year, Hong Kong’s stock market has come roaring back to life. In the first half of last year, daily turnover averaged HK$110.4 billion. Then, after Beijing rolled out measures in May to support Hong Kong’s financial markets, followed by comprehensive market rescue policies in September and explicit support for both the stock and property markets, daily turnover surged to HK$171.5 billion in the fourth quarter. In the first quarter of this year, it climbed even higher to HK$242.7 billion.
A dynamic market is a powerful fundraising platform for listed companies. Take March for example: BYD raised HK$43.4 billion through a share placement – the second largest in Hong Kong’s history. Xiaomi, in the same month, raised HK$41.3 billion. Just these two deals alone amounted to US$10.8 billion, underscoring Hong Kong’s vital role in helping companies expand through capital raising.
Just over a year ago, critics were quick to write Hong Kong off as the “ruins of an international financial centre.” Today, HKEX stands atop the world as the leading fundraising market. The speed of this reversal exposes just how hollow those earlier claims were.
Hong Kong’s Strategic Future
Looking ahead, Hong Kong’s role as an international financial centre—operating under “one country, two systems” and serving as China’s window to the world—is only becoming more crucial amid intensifying US-China geopolitical rivalry. With the Trump administration threatening to force Chinese companies to delist from US exchanges, Hong Kong’s importance as a global fundraising hub is more pronounced than ever.
Hong Kong should set ambitious goals: expand and strengthen its stock market, and aim for daily turnover to surpass HK$1 trillion within the next decade. That’s how Hong Kong can cement its place as a true super international financial centre. The city remains a land of opportunity.
Lo Wing-hung
Bastille Commentary
** The blog article is the sole responsibility of the author and does not represent the position of our company. **
The US invasion of Venezuela and the kidnapping of President Maduro for trial in America read like bad pulp fiction—except it actually happened.
Washington slapped Maduro with four charges: narco-terrorism conspiracy, cocaine importation conspiracy, possession of machineguns and destructive devices, and conspiracy to possess those weapons targeting the United States. At his court appearance, Maduro stated plainly: "I was kidnapped, I am innocent". He denied every allegation and reminded the court he remains Venezuela's president—now branded a war criminal by American prosecutors.
When Self-Protection Becomes a Crime
Two of the four charges, possession of machine guns and destructive devices, belong in a satire, not a courtroom. What crime did Maduro commit by possessing weapons in his own country's capital to protect himself? If these charges hold water, US law and justice have become truly farcical.
The narco-terrorism and cocaine importation charges are, naturally, fabricated accusations. The US has produced zero concrete evidence proving Maduro organized any drug trafficking operation.
This US operation—abducting another country's president for trial in America—allegedly violates international law in three distinct ways.
Violation One: Banned Use of Force
According to Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter, using force or threatening force in international relations is prohibited. This US military operation received no UN Security Council authorization and doesn't constitute "self-defense" under Article 51 of the UN Charter.
Washington claims the operation was self-defense against drug-related crimes, but international law experts broadly agree that combating drug trafficking fails to meet the strict conditions for self-defense or humanitarian intervention under international law—it cannot justify using force against another country.
Violation Two: Sovereignty and Non-Interference
According to Article 2(1) of the United Nations Charter, the US deployment of troops to invade Venezuela violated Venezuela's sovereignty, territorial integrity, and political independence.
Washington used domestic law as justification to conduct cross-border law enforcement through military means, attempting to engineer regime change in Venezuela—a textbook case of interference in another country's internal affairs.
Violation Three: Head of State Immunity
According to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and customary international law, a head of state enjoys immunity during their term of office, even when in other countries.
The US crossed borders to arrest Maduro and drag him to America for trial—an act of kidnapping that completely disregards head of state immunity and brazenly destroys international conventions and legal principles.
No UN Mandate, No Legitimacy
To summarize: this US operation lacked UN Security Council authorization and doesn't comply with the collective security mechanism for lawful use of force under international law. As UN Secretary-General António Guterres stated, such US behavior sets a dangerous precedent.
The US openly trampled international law, yet its Western allies stayed silent as winter cicadas—Britain, France, and Germany all responded with vague statements or outright support. Take Britain: Prime Minister Keir Starmer dodged questions with the excuse that "it is not straightforward. It is complicated," and danced around every question.
Even senior Labour MPs found his evasiveness unsatisfactory. Dame Emily Thornberry, Chair of the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, warned that the US action has no basis in international law whatsoever, and Britain needs to clearly state the US violated international law. She argued that if the West cannot mount a coherent and forceful response, international law norms will collapse.
However, she also suffers from the common affliction of Western politicians: bringing up China unprompted. She claimed that if the West doesn't condemn US military intervention in Venezuela, it might set an extremely bad precedent for countries like China and Russia. She speculated that countries like China and Russia might think, “that they should all have their spheres of influence and that other countries should not get involved and they should be able to essentially do what they think is the right thing to do, what they want to do in the interests of their country, in the countries in the surrounding area…
She went further, stating that “President Putin will presumably say, well, Ukraine is in my sphere of influence - what are you complaining about? And Xi may well say that about Taiwan. It sets a terrible precedent and [is] really worrying."
While I largely agree with British MP Thornberry's criticism of the US trampling international law, when she mentions Taiwan, she reveals a fundamental lack of understanding about international law. The People's Republic of China restored its seat at the United Nations in October 1971 and is China's only legitimate government and a permanent member of the Security Council. Taiwan was expelled from the UN in 1971, and the international community—including the United States—has long recognized Taiwan as part of China. Therefore, Article 2(4) of the UN Charter prohibiting use of force in international relations, Article 2(1) prohibiting violation of other countries' sovereignty, and the Vienna Convention's provisions on head of state immunity all target states as subjects and are completely inapplicable to China's handling of the Taiwan issue, because Taiwan is not a country but merely a province of China.
Though Thornberry displays ignorance about international law, her remarks still contain a kernel of logic: since the US did this to Venezuela and its Western allies stayed silent as winter cicadas, they've forfeited any right to comment on how China treats Taiwan.
Lo Wing-hung
