Ahmed Imtiaz is a qualified barrister working as a legal counsel for a global insights platform in London. He is a candidate in May for Church Street Ward on Westminster Council.
Since the Trump administration took charge, the United States has taken a series of steps that depart from long‑standing norms in American economic policy.
The current administration has become far more interventionist in shaping how capital flows into and within the country. This shift is visible in three distinct areas. First, tariffed countries are now being guided toward specific sectors where the US prefers inward investment, effectively steering foreign capital into industries Washington considers strategically important. Second, the government has taken equity stakes in major public companies. Intel and MP Materials are two prominent examples, with the federal government taking stakes of roughly 10 per cent and 15 per cent respectively, an approach that would have been unthinkable in previous decades. Third, the US has demanded a share of revenue from Nvidia and AMD’s China‑related business. Both companies were instructed to remit 15 per cent of revenue from AI chip sales to China as a condition for receiving export licences. These actions illustrate a broader trend: the US is actively reshaping its capital markets to strengthen domestic industry and maintain global technological leadership.
The UK, however, faces a very different challenge. Instead of attracting capital and listings, it is losing them at an accelerating pace.
Increasing numbers of British companies are delisting from London and moving their primary listings to New York. The most recent and high‑profile example is CRH, the building materials giant, which chose to leave the London Stock Exchange (LSE) in favour of the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE). The company cited higher trading volumes, deeper liquidity, and stronger valuations in the US as the key reasons for the move. CRH is not alone. Other major firms, namely Flutter Entertainment, TUI, and Just Eat, among them, have made similar decisions in recent years. Each departure weakens the London Stock Exchange, reduces liquidity, and makes the UK a less attractive destination for both public and private investment.
One of the most impactful steps the UK government could take to reverse this trend is to mandate that pension funds allocate a minimum percentage of their portfolios to domestic public markets. This does not mean instructing pension funds on which specific companies to buy. Rather, it means ensuring that a small, fixed portion of their capital supports British public companies.
At present, UK pension funds have sharply reduced their exposure to domestic equities. They increasingly favour US, Asian, and global markets where growth prospects and valuations appear stronger. But this behaviour creates a self‑reinforcing cycle: less domestic investment leads to lower liquidity; lower liquidity leads to lower valuations; lower valuations push companies to list abroad; and fewer listings make the UK market even less attractive. Without intervention, this cycle will continue to erode the competitiveness of the London market.
A declining public market has consequences far beyond the LSE itself. It affects the entire investment ecosystem. Private equity and venture capital investors rely on a strong domestic stock exchange as a viable exit route for the companies they back. If the LSE remains weak, investors will continue funnelling capital into Silicon Valley and other US markets where IPO prospects are more favourable. This dynamic means that promising British companies may increasingly seek funding abroad, further weakening the UK’s innovation landscape. To attract more private investment into the UK, we need a robust local stock market, one that offers a credible path to public listing and strong valuations.
Retail investors are also part of this picture. In recent years, retail participation has grown significantly in markets such as the US, Japan, and South Korea. These markets offer more dynamism, more listed companies, and more compelling growth stories. To attract retail investors back to London, the UK needs more companies, not fewer. A shrinking pool of listed firms makes the market less appealing, which in turn reduces liquidity and depresses valuations even further.
The government must act quickly to make the London Stock Exchange competitive again.
As things stand, UK pension funds are reducing their exposure to domestic equities because they perceive higher growth opportunities in markets such as the NYSE, Nasdaq, Kospi, and Nikkei. To break this cycle, the government should require pension funds to invest locally. Even a modest mandated allocation could have a transformative effect. Increased domestic investment would boost liquidity, encourage more UK companies to go public, reduce the number of firms delisting, and attract global private investors seeking a strong exit market. It would also draw retail investors back to the LSE by creating a more vibrant and diverse marketplace.
This is not about protectionism. It is about ensuring that British savings help build British prosperity.
Other countries, including the US, are taking bold steps to strengthen their financial ecosystems. The UK cannot afford to stand still while its public markets continue to erode. A modest, mandated domestic equity allocation for pension funds is a practical, low‑risk, high‑impact reform that could revitalise the London Stock Exchange, support British companies, and restore the UK’s competitiveness on the global stage.
Ahmed Imtiaz is a qualified barrister working as a legal counsel for a global insights platform in London. He is a candidate in May for Church Street Ward on Westminster Council.
Since the Trump administration took charge, the United States has taken a series of steps that depart from long‑standing norms in American economic policy.
The current administration has become far more interventionist in shaping how capital flows into and within the country. This shift is visible in three distinct areas. First, tariffed countries are now being guided toward specific sectors where the US prefers inward investment, effectively steering foreign capital into industries Washington considers strategically important. Second, the government has taken equity stakes in major public companies. Intel and MP Materials are two prominent examples, with the federal government taking stakes of roughly 10 per cent and 15 per cent respectively, an approach that would have been unthinkable in previous decades. Third, the US has demanded a share of revenue from Nvidia and AMD’s China‑related business. Both companies were instructed to remit 15 per cent of revenue from AI chip sales to China as a condition for receiving export licences. These actions illustrate a broader trend: the US is actively reshaping its capital markets to strengthen domestic industry and maintain global technological leadership.
The UK, however, faces a very different challenge. Instead of attracting capital and listings, it is losing them at an accelerating pace.
Increasing numbers of British companies are delisting from London and moving their primary listings to New York. The most recent and high‑profile example is CRH, the building materials giant, which chose to leave the London Stock Exchange (LSE) in favour of the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE). The company cited higher trading volumes, deeper liquidity, and stronger valuations in the US as the key reasons for the move. CRH is not alone. Other major firms, namely Flutter Entertainment, TUI, and Just Eat, among them, have made similar decisions in recent years. Each departure weakens the London Stock Exchange, reduces liquidity, and makes the UK a less attractive destination for both public and private investment.
One of the most impactful steps the UK government could take to reverse this trend is to mandate that pension funds allocate a minimum percentage of their portfolios to domestic public markets. This does not mean instructing pension funds on which specific companies to buy. Rather, it means ensuring that a small, fixed portion of their capital supports British public companies.
At present, UK pension funds have sharply reduced their exposure to domestic equities. They increasingly favour US, Asian, and global markets where growth prospects and valuations appear stronger. But this behaviour creates a self‑reinforcing cycle: less domestic investment leads to lower liquidity; lower liquidity leads to lower valuations; lower valuations push companies to list abroad; and fewer listings make the UK market even less attractive. Without intervention, this cycle will continue to erode the competitiveness of the London market.
A declining public market has consequences far beyond the LSE itself. It affects the entire investment ecosystem. Private equity and venture capital investors rely on a strong domestic stock exchange as a viable exit route for the companies they back. If the LSE remains weak, investors will continue funnelling capital into Silicon Valley and other US markets where IPO prospects are more favourable. This dynamic means that promising British companies may increasingly seek funding abroad, further weakening the UK’s innovation landscape. To attract more private investment into the UK, we need a robust local stock market, one that offers a credible path to public listing and strong valuations.
Retail investors are also part of this picture. In recent years, retail participation has grown significantly in markets such as the US, Japan, and South Korea. These markets offer more dynamism, more listed companies, and more compelling growth stories. To attract retail investors back to London, the UK needs more companies, not fewer. A shrinking pool of listed firms makes the market less appealing, which in turn reduces liquidity and depresses valuations even further.
The government must act quickly to make the London Stock Exchange competitive again.
As things stand, UK pension funds are reducing their exposure to domestic equities because they perceive higher growth opportunities in markets such as the NYSE, Nasdaq, Kospi, and Nikkei. To break this cycle, the government should require pension funds to invest locally. Even a modest mandated allocation could have a transformative effect. Increased domestic investment would boost liquidity, encourage more UK companies to go public, reduce the number of firms delisting, and attract global private investors seeking a strong exit market. It would also draw retail investors back to the LSE by creating a more vibrant and diverse marketplace.
This is not about protectionism. It is about ensuring that British savings help build British prosperity.
Other countries, including the US, are taking bold steps to strengthen their financial ecosystems. The UK cannot afford to stand still while its public markets continue to erode. A modest, mandated domestic equity allocation for pension funds is a practical, low‑risk, high‑impact reform that could revitalise the London Stock Exchange, support British companies, and restore the UK’s competitiveness on the global stage.