Hong Kong's Shaky Standing as a Financial Center Is Giving Rise to Singapore
As Hong Kong remains shrouded in uncertainty, Singapore appears to be gaining prominence as an alternative for the business world.
June 30, 2020 at 01:00 AM
4 minute read
China's Hong Kong national security law—which could be approved as early as this week—is drawing significant backlash and has the potential to undo Hong Kong's longstanding position as a global financial center. Hong Kong is braced for more uncertainty, and Singapore is again on people's minds as an alternative.
For years, Hong Kong and Singapore have competed head-to-head to be Asia's center of professional services, from cross-border financing to dispute resolution. As legal markets, Hong Kong and Singapore couldn't be more different: Hong Kong has more or less an open regime for foreign lawyers despite a recent trend of increased regulatory oversight; Singapore, on the other hand, operates a highly regulated regime for foreign legal practitioners but has been gradually opening up. As far as opening an office is concerned, Hong Kong appears to have a much more straightforward and efficient process; Singapore's process can be more nuanced and more protracted.
But the ease of launching an office isn't the only—or, in many cases, the most crucial—factor in deciding where to base a firm's Asia presence. It's helpful to take a step back and compare the two cities in a broader sense.
Both Hong Kong and Singapore operate stock exchanges, which generate a fair amount of work for intermediaries, including lawyers. But the Hong Kong Stock Exchange is much bigger than the Singapore Exchange by most measures. As of the end of April, total market capitalization of all stocks trading on the HKEX was $4.5 trillion, nearly eight times the $566 billion market capitalization of SGX shares. In 2019, the HKEX saw 163 new companies listed while the SGX saw 11.
The HKEX's clear advantage is access to Chinese capital. It benefits from the listings of high-profile Chinese companies as well as trading programs with mainland investors. The SGX, while also vying for Chinese listings, has seen a continuous decline of listed Chinese companies and lacks policy backing from China.
Hong Kong and Singapore's respective relations with China—still the world's second-largest economy and home to 1.4 billion people—are important; they are a key driver behind the dynamics between the two cities when it comes to cross-border dispute resolution. Despite having a separate legal and political system, Hong Kong is, after all, part of China. Singapore is a sovereign nation to itself. For years, Hong Kong has benefited as China has opened up its vast market, but being part of China means that it can be swayed by the central government in Beijing, which is often at odds with the West, both politically and ideologically.
Unlike the stock exchanges, international dispute resolution is an area where Hong Kong and Singapore have really been neck and neck. The Hong Kong International Arbitration Center, which has a longer history, has been handling more cases than its younger rival, the Singapore International Arbitration Center. But the growth in case load for the HKIAC has been flat over the past decade—the institution handled 503 new disputes in 2019, after handling 502 cases in 2011. Meanwhile, the SIAC has grown exponentially, going from 188 to 479 cases in that same span. And disputes handled by the SIAC have consistently had higher values. Last year, the SIAC handled $8.09 billion in total disputes, while the HKIAC handled $4.7 billion.
Now, as Hong Kong's judicial independence is increasingly in question, it casts a shadow over the future of the HKIAC. Singapore, too, has issues with judicial independence. In the World Economic Forum's 2019 global competitive index, both jurisdictions saw a decline in their judicial independence scores. Hong Kong ranked eighth and Singapore was 14th, out of 141 countries. Singapore, though, is seen as neutral when it comes to China.
And as Hong Kong is engulfed in yet another political crisis involving its relations with Beijing, neutrality with China may be the one factor that puts Singapore ahead.
Email: [email protected]
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'Further Investment in Power' Will Drive Big Law Business—But What About Clean Energy Projects?
6 minute readLegal Departments Gripe About Outside Counsel but Rarely Talk to Them
4 minute readAs Profits Rise, Law Firms Likely to Make More AI Investments in 2025
Trending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250