Is an Asian listing or raise right for a mid-market company

A Hong Kong listing is a decision a board makes on purpose. The home exchange is the default for almost every company, and a move offshore has to earn its place with a specific reason, a clear view of the market cycle, and an honest costing of what two regulatory regimes will demand. This guide sets out how we frame that question for a mid-market company in North America or Australia.

The default is home

Companies tend to list where they operate. Offshore listings made up only 5 to 10 percent of the annual number of IPOs worldwide between 2013 and 2022². The reason will be familiar to anyone who has marketed a deal: investors share a language and a culture with the companies they already know, and they lean toward those companies, a pattern the research calls home bias².

So an Asian listing is not something a company drifts into. It is a strategic choice, and it deserves the same discipline a board would apply to an acquisition.

Why companies go abroad anyway

The research on overseas listings identifies a small set of reasons that recur².

The first is investor reach. A listing outside the home market widens the shareholder base and adds a funding channel that does not depend on domestic appetite². Wider participation can raise liquidity in the stock and, with it, the valuation². One study tracked 277 Canadian firms listed in the United States between 1989 and 2004 and found that the cross-listed firms carried higher valuation premiums as the number and holdings of US institutional investors in their shares increased².

The second is credibility. A company may choose a market whose disclosure and governance framework is demanding precisely because meeting it signals quality to investors, which can support the valuation and the outcome of the raise².

The third is expansion. Where a company intends to grow in a region, listing at that region's financial centre, and disclosing its business under that market's rules, helps prospective customers there understand it².

The fourth is sector concentration. Analysts and specialist investors gather where an industry is clustered, and a listed company benefits from that following and from the pool of sector data that builds up around it². Boards in Toronto and Sydney will recognise the mechanism: the Toronto Stock Exchange and the Australian Securities Exchange each built a cluster of mining companies and the analyst following that comes with it².

What Hong Kong offers a mid-market issuer

In 2025 Hong Kong was the number one IPO venue in the world, with more than US$36 billion raised by companies from around the world¹. Behind the headline sits a market with US$32 billion of average daily turnover on the stock exchange and a presence from more than 70 of the world's top 100 banks¹.

For a mid-market issuer the relevant point is simpler than the league table. The pool of capital is large, liquid and international¹, and it is open to a company that its home market may regard as one of many.

The market moves in cycles

The last two years show the amplitude. In 2024 Hong Kong had 70 IPOs raising HKD87.5 billion³. In 2025 it is expected to have completed 114 IPOs raising about HKD286.3 billion, a 63 percent increase in listings and more than a doubling of proceeds³. Eight IPOs that each raised at least HKD10 billion contributed about half of the total, and nineteen A+H listings contributed about half as well³.

The outlook for 2026 is about 160 new listings raising at least HKD300 billion, on a pipeline of more than 300 listing applications³. International companies are named among the expected candidates, alongside A+H issuers and US-listed Chinese companies³.

Two conclusions follow. A window that opens this widely can also narrow, so the timing of a launch belongs in the decision itself, not in the execution plan. And the forecasters tie their own outlook to US monetary policy and global capital flows³, neither of which an issuer controls. A board should be ready to list into the window it is given, not the one it planned for.

Three routes, three levels of burden

A company can reach Hong Kong through a sole primary listing, a dual primary listing after listing at home, or a secondary listing². Each carries a different compliance load. A dual primary listing is subject to full compliance with the requirements of both markets², which means two sets of disclosure and governance obligations running at once, and the time and money that implies².

The research is candid about the other frictions. Differences in tax treatment between markets affect investors' after-tax returns, and unfavourable treatment can weaken demand and liquidity in the overseas stock². And the gains from a wider investor base and a better valuation are not realised in every market². None of this argues against a listing. It argues for costing the route before choosing it.

The eligibility test comes first

Before any of this, the numbers have to clear the bar. The Main Board reviews three years of financial track record and requires one of three tests to be met¹. Under the profit test, market capitalisation at listing must exceed HK$500 million, profit attributable to shareholders in the most recent year must exceed HK$35 million, and profit for the two preceding years must exceed HK$45 million¹. The market capitalisation and revenue test requires a market capitalisation above HK$4 billion and revenue in the most recent audited year above HK$500 million¹. The third test combines a market capitalisation above HK$2 billion, revenue above HK$500 million, and aggregate positive operating cash flow of more than HK$100 million across the three preceding financial years¹.

GEM sits below the Main Board as a market for small and mid-sized companies, with less stringent eligibility criteria but similar continuing obligations¹. A lighter entry test does not mean lighter obligations once listed.

The questions we would put to a board

• Which of the reasons above applies, and can it be stated in one sentence a fund manager would accept?
• Does the sector already have a following in Hong Kong, or would the company be the first of its kind there²?
• Does the three-year track record pass one of the Main Board tests today, or only after the next audit¹?
• Which route, sole primary, dual primary or secondary, and has the second regime been costed in full²?
• Where is the market in its cycle, and can the company launch inside the current window rather than after it³?

The next step

Take the last three audited years and run them against the three Main Board tests¹. If one is met, the exchange's own sequence begins with appointing a sponsor and other professional advisers, followed by due diligence and preparation of the application, with the option of a confidential pre-consultation with the exchange's listing department before anything is filed¹. That pre-consultation puts the company's numbers and its chosen route in front of the people who will vet them, before the marketing period¹ and before the larger costs are committed. It is where we would open the conversation. Appoint the sponsor and ask for that meeting.

Next in this stage: What Asian investors look for in a North American or Australian company

Request a confidential conversation

The Education Centre→