The Companies London Should Be Competing For

Whenever a company such as SpaceX comes to market, the debate is almost immediate. Could London ever have won the listing? What does it say about the UK's competitiveness? Is it further evidence of New York's growing dominance?

These questions are understandable. SpaceX is exactly the type of company that captures attention, dominates headlines and reinforces the extraordinary depth of US capital markets. Yet there is a risk that discussions such as these lead us towards the wrong conclusions because they start from the wrong benchmark.

SpaceX was always likely to list in the United States. It sits at the centre of a uniquely American ecosystem of technology, capital, innovation and investor appetite. The more interesting question is not whether London could have attracted SpaceX. It is whether transactions such as SpaceX are the right measure of London's future success in the first place.

For years, the competitiveness debate has often been framed around what London lacks. The assumption has been that success means attracting the same companies, competing for the same transactions and replicating the same market dynamics as New York. That may be a mistake.

The world's most important businesses are becoming increasingly difficult to define by reference to a single country, market or investor base. Ownership, assets, operations and capital are increasingly spread across multiple jurisdictions. A company may operate assets in Africa, attract capital from the Gulf, have strategic shareholders in Asia and raise money from institutions across Europe and North America. In sectors such as infrastructure, energy, resources and industrial development, this is becoming less the exception and more the norm.

That evolution matters because it changes the question capital markets should be asking. Consider the types of companies that have historically found a natural home in London. International resource groups. Emerging market champions. Infrastructure businesses with globally dispersed investors. Companies such as Dangote Cement, whose significance extends well beyond any single domestic market. These are businesses whose ownership, operations, investor base and growth ambitions often span multiple jurisdictions and whose capital requirements cannot easily be understood through a purely national lens.

Viewed through that lens, London's strengths start to look rather different. For much of its modern history, London has excelled not because it was the largest market, but because it was a connector market. It brought together international capital, international assets and international expertise. It provided a meeting place for businesses whose activities crossed borders and whose shareholder bases reflected the increasingly global nature of commerce itself.

What has often been viewed as complexity may increasingly become an advantage. As supply chains become more strategic, capital pools become more diverse and investment decisions become shaped by a wider range of commercial and geopolitical considerations, the ability to connect different jurisdictions and stakeholder groups becomes more valuable. A company with African assets, Gulf capital, international investors and global growth ambitions is not simply choosing a listing venue. It is choosing an ecosystem capable of connecting all of those interests.

This is one reason why some of the more interesting developments in UK capital markets are not solely focused on attracting the next global technology champion. Initiatives such as PISCES reflect a broader willingness to think about ownership, liquidity and market structure in different ways. Whether every initiative succeeds is ultimately less important than the underlying recognition that capital markets are evolving alongside the businesses they serve.

The same logic applies to the broader competitiveness debate. New York's advantages in scale, liquidity and growth capital are obvious and likely to remain so. The future, however, may not belong exclusively to the largest markets. It may also favour markets that understand how to serve increasingly international businesses whose investors, assets and opportunities are spread across multiple jurisdictions.

None of this suggests that London should stop competing for ambitious growth companies. Nor does it imply that scale no longer matters. Rather, it suggests that competitiveness should not be judged solely through the lens of transactions that were never realistically heading anywhere other than New York.

The more revealing question is whether London is positioned to serve the internationally connected businesses that are becoming an increasingly important feature of the global economy. If that proves to be the direction of travel, the qualities that have historically distinguished London may turn out to be less an inheritance from the past and more a source of future relevance.

The future of capital markets is often discussed in terms of scale. It may ultimately be shaped just as much by connectivity, and by the ability to bring together capital, assets and investors from across an increasingly interconnected world.