On the surface, the last twenty years look like a simple market story: the United States emerged as the dominant listed-market winner.

Between 2005 and 2025, the Nasdaq Composite rose by approximately 970%, while the Dow Jones Industrial Average gained around 348%. Over the same period, the Hang Seng Index rose by approximately 72%, despite Hong Kong’s long-standing role as one of Asia’s most important financial centres.

Set against the previous twenty-year period, the shift becomes even more striking:

•    Nasdaq Composite: +580% between 1985 and 2005; +970% between 2005 and 2025.
•    Dow Jones Industrial Average: +593% between 1985 and 2005; +348% between 2005 and 2025.
•    Hang Seng Index: +749% between 1985 and 2005; +72% between 2005 and 2025.
•    Nikkei 225: +23% between 1985 and 2005; +212% between 2005 and 2025.

The figures do not tell the whole story, but they highlight how dramatically perceptions of future value creation changed. Between 1985 and 2005, Hong Kong was central to the investment story of Asia’s rise. However, from 2005 to 2025, the dominant market story became the strength of US technology.

Seen across forty years, this is not simply a story of one market outperforming another. It is a story of investors changing their view of where future value would be created.
 

When Hong Kong was the gateway to growth

The investment case for Asia in the late twentieth century was relatively easy to understand. The region was building factories, ports, supply chains, and export industries at an extraordinary pace. Globalisation was moving production east, China was becoming more deeply integrated into the world economy, and Hong Kong sat at the centre of that shift.

In that environment, markets rewarded physical expansion. Growth could be seen in trade volumes, infrastructure, manufacturing capacity and rising cross-border activity. Investors were buying into an economic transformation that felt visible, tangible and measurable.

That is why the Hang Seng’s performance between 1985 and 2005 remains significant. A gain of approximately 749% reflected more than investor optimism. It reflected Hong Kong's position as one of the principal listed-market beneficiaries of Asia's emergence as a global economic force.
 

When Silicon Valley changed the rules

The period after 2005 was different. Economic performance across Asia varied, but China’s economy expanded, regional wealth increased, and consumer markets deepened in many parts of the region. Yet equity market leadership moved decisively towards the United States, particularly technology.

The Nasdaq Composite’s rise of roughly 970% between 2005 and 2025 did not simply reflect a stronger US economy. Average US wages roughly doubled over the same broad period, creating a striking gap between labour income and technology-led asset prices.

That suggests markets were no longer rewarding economic growth alone, but a more specific form of scalable, technology-led growth.

Software, cloud computing, semiconductors, smartphones, artificial intelligence, and digital platforms enabled businesses to achieve extraordinary scalability. Unlike the industrial giants of previous decades, many of these companies could expand globally without continuously replicating physical infrastructure. 

The market increasingly rewarded intellectual property, data, network effects and digital ecosystems. That shift was also supported by deep US capital markets, strong venture-capital ecosystems and investors willing to place high valuations on long-duration technology growth. 

In many respects, Silicon Valley did not just outperform. It changed the characteristics for which investors were willing to pay a premium.
 

Economic growth and market returns are not the same thing

It would be wrong to suggest that wealth creation disappeared from Asia. In many respects, the opposite happened. Across the region, incomes rose, cities expanded, infrastructure improved, and consumer spending increased.

The challenge is that economic growth does not always translate directly into stock market performance. Growth can be captured by private businesses, state-linked enterprises, property markets, workers, consumers or overseas-listed companies. It can also be diluted by regulatory changes, valuation shifts, capital allocation decisions and market structure.

Investors do not buy GDP, they buy companies, and more specifically, they buy future cash flows, governance structures, competitive advantages and the expectation of future returns.

That helps explain why Asia could continue to generate substantial economic growth while many of its headline indices struggled to keep pace with US technology stocks.
 

What were investors really buying?

The question, then, is whether global wealth creation truly moved from Hong Kong to Silicon Valley, or whether ownership of growth became concentrated in a different form.

Many of the largest US technology companies generate revenues throughout Asia and around the world. Their customers, supply chains and end markets are global, yet their listings and shareholder returns remain concentrated within US markets.

The location of economic activity is not always the same as the location of market value.

A smartphone may be assembled in Asia, sold globally, powered by semiconductors from multiple regions and connected to software platforms listed in the United States. The economic chain is international, but the equity market reward may be concentrated elsewhere.

Perhaps investors did not move away from Asia because Asia stopped mattering. Perhaps they moved towards the companies they believed controlled the highest-value layers of global growth.
 

Could the next twenty years look different?

Market leadership rarely feels temporary while it is happening. Japan’s dominance in the late 1980s looked formidable. Hong Kong’s role as a gateway to China appeared central to the future of global capital. Today, the dominance of US technology can seem equally difficult to challenge.

Yet leadership changes when the source of value creation changes.

Artificial intelligence may reinforce the position of today's technology leaders, but it may also create new infrastructure demands, new energy requirements, new supply chains and new regional winners. 

India, Southeast Asia and other emerging markets may become increasingly important sources of consumer growth and capital formation. Hong Kong may continue evolving as a bridge between mainland China and international capital as investors seek greater diversification and regional exposure.

History suggests that market leadership is rarely permanent.
 

The real lesson

Markets do not simply reward growth. They reward the type of growth investors believe will dominate the future.

Between 1985 and 2005, that future appeared closely linked to Asia’s industrial expansion, China’s opening and Hong Kong’s gateway role. Between 2005 and 2025, it became associated with Silicon Valley’s digital scale, platform economics and ownership of high-value intellectual property.

The next twenty years may be shaped by something different again.

For investors, the question is not only where growth will occur. It is who will own it, who will monetise it and which markets will ultimately capture the returns.

Note: Percentage comparisons are based on the year-end index levels for 1985, 2005 and 2025:

•    Nasdaq Composite: 324.39 in 1985, 2,205.32 in 2005, and 23,593.10 in 2025.
•    Dow Jones Industrial Average: 1,546.67 in 1985, 10,717.50 in 2005, and 48,063.29 in 2025.
•    Hang Seng Index: 1,752.45 in 1985, 14,876.43 in 2005, and 25,630.54 in 2025.
•    Nikkei 225: 13,113.32 in 1985, 16,111.43 in 2005, and 50,339.48 in 2025.

The figures are intended to illustrate long-term market leadership trends rather than precise total-return performance. Dividends, currency movements, inflation and reinvestment effects are excluded.
 

Back to News