The Asian Financial Forum 2026 concluded this week in Hong Kong, but the more-revealing question is not what was said on stage. It is why this gathering still matters at all.

In an era when globalization no longer advances by default, when trade has become political and capital more guarded, the idea of an international financial forum can feel almost quaint. Many cities still claim to be open. Fewer can operate as if openness still carries costs as well as benefits.

Hong Kong is trying to prove that it can.

The forum’s theme, “Co-creating New Horizons Amid an Evolving Landscape”, was not chosen for comfort. It reflected a recognition that the global financial system is fragmenting in ways that go beyond economic cycles. Supply chains are being reorganized around political trust rather than efficiency. Sanctions have blurred into strategy. Central banks are navigating inflation, debt, and geopolitical risk simultaneously.

In such an environment, financial centers face a strategic choice. They can retreat into regional blocs and political alignment, or they can attempt to remain connective tissue in a world that no longer fits neatly together. Hong Kong is betting on the second path.

That bet deserves scrutiny, not cheerleading.

One signal lies in the emphasis on fundamentals that are no longer taken for granted. Regulatory predictability. Market liquidity. Investor protection. These are not fashionable talking points, but in a world short on trust, they matter more than innovation slogans. Capital does not need certainty. It needs rules that do not shift with political weather.

The continued growth in overseas companies operating in Hong Kong, alongside a rising number of startups, does not guarantee future success. But it does suggest that global firms still see value in a jurisdiction that combines international regulatory standards with proximity to Asian growth and Chinese mainland capital.

More telling, however, was the forum’s attention to areas often dismissed as old-economy concerns. Gold trading, for instance, may sound out of place at a conference dominated by artificial intelligence and digital finance. In reality, its resurgence reflects something deeper.

Companies now accept higher costs in exchange for redundancy, flexibility, and political safety. Financing this new trade landscape requires institutions that understand complexity rather than scale alone. This is where Hong Kong’s value proposition becomes clearer. It’s not seeking to dominate global finance. It’s positioning itself as an intermediary that still functions when systems diverge

Gold thrives when trust erodes. It’s no one’s liability. In a world where currencies, payment systems, and even reserve assets are increasingly politicized, neutral stores of value regain appeal. Asia already accounts for the majority of global physical gold demand, yet its pricing, clearing, and settlement infrastructure remain fragmented.

Hong Kong’s ambition to position itself as an international gold-trading hub is not nostalgia. It’s a pragmatic response to a world that is hedging against uncertainty rather than betting on convergence.

The same realism shaped discussions on trade finance and supply chains. For decades, global finance assumed that efficiency would always outweigh resilience. That assumption has collapsed. Companies now accept higher costs in exchange for redundancy, flexibility, and political safety. Financing this new trade landscape requires institutions that understand complexity rather than scale alone. This is where Hong Kong’s value proposition becomes clearer. It’s not seeking to dominate global finance. It’s positioning itself as an intermediary that still functions when systems diverge.

That intermediary role is increasingly rare. Many financial centers now align themselves explicitly with a particular political or economic bloc. Hong Kong, by contrast, continues to argue that its relevance lies in connecting systems that do not naturally trust one another.

This is not a risk-free strategy. Intermediaries are often the first to feel pressure when tensions rise. Yet they are also the last institutions standing when dialogue breaks down. In a fragmented global economy, the ability to translate standards, manage cross-border risk, and host capital from competing systems becomes a strategic asset rather than a diplomatic luxury.

Geopolitics loomed heavily over the forum, and for good reason. Trade disputes, tariff threats, and institutional paralysis are no longer abstract risks. They are shaping capital allocation today. Multilateral governance has weakened, leaving markets searching for anchors that are functional rather than ideological.

Here, Hong Kong’s argument is deliberately modest. It does not claim to resolve geopolitical rivalry. It claims to operate despite it.

Technology discussions reflected a similar sobriety. AI was treated less as a revolution than as an accelerant. It will make markets faster and more efficient, but also more fragile. Tokenization promises lower friction, but only if custody, governance, and regulatory oversight evolve alongside it.

What stood out was an acknowledgement that financial innovation without institutional trust is hollow. Digital assets do not remove risk. They redistribute it. Jurisdictions that recognize this reality, rather than chase novelty, are more likely to attract serious capital over time.

By the forum’s end, there was no illusion of calm. The prevailing mood was cautious realism. Growth will remain uneven. Political shocks will continue. The gap between developed and emerging economies remains wide. Recovery is incomplete and asymmetrical.

Yet resilience emerged as the unifying theme. Not as optimism, but as design. Resilience is built through systems that can absorb stress without failing. Through markets that function even when consensus is absent. This is where Hong Kong’s case ultimately rests. Not on exceptionalism, but on usefulness. Not on dominance, but on function.

In a world that is breaking apart, being able to hold things together may turn out to be the more valuable ambition.

The author is chairman of the Asia MarTech Society and sits on the advisory boards of several professional organizations, including two universities.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.