Roach and Clermont Dispute What Hong Kong’s Rebound Proves

Stephen Roach and Hong Kong lawyer Adam Clermont disagree over what the city’s financial rebound says about its future. An October 15 Washington Post report quoted both men: Roach questioned whether stronger markets can offset the loss of political autonomy, while Clermont argued that Western coverage discounts Hong Kong’s resilience and everyday freedoms.

Roach, a former chairman of Morgan Stanley Asia, has argued that mainland companies are driving Hong Kong’s return as an initial-public-offering center. The Post reported 117 listings through October 12, nearly matching the 119 recorded in all of 2025, with more than 450 companies awaiting approval. Nearly all the issuers were from mainland China, it said. The report also put banks’ Hong Kong listing fees at $579 million last year, down from $932 million in 2020, and attributed the decline in part to lower fees paid by mainland issuers.

The same report described a Hang Seng Index rally of about 50 percent since early 2024, though the index remained below its 2021 peak. It said 92 percent of companies surveyed by the American Chamber of Commerce planned to remain in Hong Kong for the next three years. Those figures document market activity and business intentions. They do not, by themselves, resolve Roach’s argument about the city’s political direction.

In an August response to critics including Clermont, Roach acknowledged comparisons with New York and London as a “fair point,” but said they missed his concern: changes imposed by Beijing after 2020. Clermont has challenged what he sees as a tendency to judge Hong Kong more harshly than Western cities.

Clermont developed that comparison in an October 15 essay about a Massachusetts lawsuit involving Everclear, Luxco’s high-proof grain alcohol. He alleges that a federal judge accused him of contempt and muted him during an October 9 video hearing after he commented to Law360 about a ruling. A public case docket describes a different concern: whether Clermont had appeared to identify himself as the plaintiff’s lawyer after his role as counsel ended. The docket does not independently establish his account of being muted or threatened with contempt.

Clermont filed a judicial-conduct complaint with the First Circuit on October 12. He alleges that he was not given a meaningful chance to answer the accusations. Those are his allegations, not findings of judicial misconduct. He uses the episode to question whether protections for speech and due process in the United States always work as promised in practice.

His essay also raises a separate product-safety question about Everclear and flaming drinks. The Tipsy Bartender website publishes a “Flaming Melon” recipe that calls for Everclear to be ignited and the flame blown out before drinking. Clermont says he told the drinks brand about burn cases and that the videos remained online. He says he does not know whether Luxco pays Tipsy Bartender. The recipe’s existence does not establish a commercial relationship between the two.

In a subsequent LinkedIn exchange, Roach wished Clermont a full recovery and agreed with some of the concerns raised in the essay, while maintaining that Hong Kong lacks free and fair elections. Their disagreement remains about the standard of comparison: Roach points to who governs Hong Kong and how, while Clermont asks whether American institutions meet the standards their defenders invoke. Clermont’s judicial complaint remains an allegation; its outcome has not been established.