HKEX CEO: SpaceX IPO Has Not Shaken Global Investors' Priority Allocation to China
Miles Bennett
SpaceX's $85.7 billion IPO shattered the global record and pushed Nasdaq past Hong Kong as this year's top listing venue, but HKEX CEO Bonnie Chan says international institutions still treat China as their top pick for tech investment — a claim that now awaits hard capital-flow data to back it up.
How big is an $85.7 billion IPO?
Underwriters exercised the over-allotment option, lifting proceeds from $75 billion to $85.7 billion — more than double Saudi Aramco's 2019 record of $29.4 billion.
That single deal also exceeds twice Hong Kong's $37.2 billion full-year IPO total last year.
This means → one listing alone could "swallow" a major exchange's entire annual new-share market — twice over.
What are Asian investors worried about?
The core concern: Asian tech companies generally trade at lower valuations than comparable U.S. peers, giving capital an objective reason to migrate.
SpaceX landing on Nasdaq — the largest-ever tech IPO — risks amplifying that gap by pulling global attention stateside.
In plain terms = money moves toward higher expected returns; the gravitational pull is real.
How did the HKEX CEO respond?
Speaking at the Lujiazui Forum in Shanghai, Bonnie Chan said international institutional investors still view Asia — China in particular — as a priority destination.
She cited direct conversations with those institutions: "Their focus is on Asia. For them, China's rise in tech innovation is no longer an option — it is the first choice."
This reflects HKEX management stepping in to break the narrative that a mega-IPO automatically means capital flight from Asia.
Is the reassurance enough?
Chan's argument stays on qualitative ground — she quotes institutional "sentiment," not actual fund-flow data.
This means → what the market needs is not a confidence call but hard metrics: southbound Stock Connect flows, QFII position shifts, net inflows into Asian tech equities.
In plain terms = saying "the money hasn't left" is not the same as proving it — and proof is the test this statement now faces.
Content is for reference only, not financial advice.